*/
The Lord Chancellor took the fight over judges’ pension reforms to the Court of Appeal, days after announcing a 2% pay rise for judges.
Two years ago 226 judges, including six High Court judges who now sit on the Court of Appeal, brought claims for age discrimination, race discrimination and equal pay at an employment tribunal over changes to their pension entitlement.
The tribunal found in favour of the judges, ruling in January 2017 that the Ministry of Justice and the Lord Chancellor had discriminated against younger judges by requiring them to leave the judicial pension scheme in April 2015 while allowing older judges to remain in the scheme.
The government appealed against the ruling but the Employment Appeals Tribunal dismissed the case in January 2018.
The case was heard by Lord Justice Longmore, Sir Colin Rimer and Sir Patrick Elias, who have no vested interest in the outcome. The judgment is expected next year, and if the Court of Appeal upholds the previous decision it could land the Ministry of Justice with a bill of £70m to £100m.
The week before the case, the Lord Chancellor, David Gauke announced that judges would receive a 2% pay rise – well below the 32% recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body for High Court judges, 22% for circuit judges and 8% for district judges.
Gauke said: ‘Our independent judiciary is the cornerstone of the rule of law, and effective remuneration is critical to the continued attraction and retention of high calibre judges.’
The Lord Chancellor took the fight over judges’ pension reforms to the Court of Appeal, days after announcing a 2% pay rise for judges.
Two years ago 226 judges, including six High Court judges who now sit on the Court of Appeal, brought claims for age discrimination, race discrimination and equal pay at an employment tribunal over changes to their pension entitlement.
The tribunal found in favour of the judges, ruling in January 2017 that the Ministry of Justice and the Lord Chancellor had discriminated against younger judges by requiring them to leave the judicial pension scheme in April 2015 while allowing older judges to remain in the scheme.
The government appealed against the ruling but the Employment Appeals Tribunal dismissed the case in January 2018.
The case was heard by Lord Justice Longmore, Sir Colin Rimer and Sir Patrick Elias, who have no vested interest in the outcome. The judgment is expected next year, and if the Court of Appeal upholds the previous decision it could land the Ministry of Justice with a bill of £70m to £100m.
The week before the case, the Lord Chancellor, David Gauke announced that judges would receive a 2% pay rise – well below the 32% recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body for High Court judges, 22% for circuit judges and 8% for district judges.
Gauke said: ‘Our independent judiciary is the cornerstone of the rule of law, and effective remuneration is critical to the continued attraction and retention of high calibre judges.’
Politically neutral, yet loud and clear – why standing on the sidelines is not an option
With the property market witnessing significant changes since the beginning of the pandemic, Fleet Street Wealth’s Managing Director Julian Morgan considers the future of the home, the second home and the office
In partnership with the Bar Council, LexisNexis is offering up to 60% off its extensive webinar offering.
Chambers is expanding its team.
Making a move from the Bar to a career in governance: Maria Brookes outlines three good reasons to switch and how to do it
Inés Rivera explains how speech recognition can help barristers create accurate documentation faster
The barrister-author talks to Chris Henley QC about the parallels between farming and farmers, and the law and barristers, and the dilemmas of combining young children with continued practice at the Bar
Permitting vulnerable people to be heard is a difficult role, but I have so much joy from it. Mary Prior QC shares life lessons with Aadhithya Anbahan
If the Bar is complacent on the issue of race, then we will perpetuate the same racial inequities that continue to pervade our society, writes Professor Leslie Thomas QC
Tim Prudhoe's lessons learnt: as the scope increases for working overseas, here's some advice on how to build the foundations for an international practice (and not upset the local Bar)
Politically neutral, yet loud and clear why standing on the sidelines is not an option
