header-logo header-logo

Judges’ pay

25 June 2014
Issue: 7612 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has issued an update on judges’ pensions following the case of O’Brien v MoJ [2013] UKSC 6, and Miller v MoJ at the employment tribunal in January.

It will implement a fee-paid Judicial Pension Scheme (JPS) for fee-paid service from 7 April 2000 to 31 March 2015 for eligible fee-paid judicial office holders, as described in the Miller judgment. The scheme will mirror the current Judicial Pensions & Retirement Act scheme. 

Fee-paid judicial office holders will qualify for the scheme from 7 April 2000, although that date is subject to appeal and may change.

The new JPS 2015, due to begin on 1 April 2015, will apply to fee-paid and salaried judicial office holders. A 12-week consultation on its regulations began on 17 June 2014 and ends on 8 September. The MoJ has urged all affected parties to view the consultation.

 

Issue: 7612 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll