header-logo header-logo

15 June 2021
Categories: Legal News , Pensions , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

LNB News: Home Office publishes updated guidance to progress immediate detriment cases

The Home Office has published updated technical notes that provide informal and non-statutory guidance on immediate detriment cases as part of the litigation in The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice v McCloud; The Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Welsh Ministers and Others v Sargeant [2018] EWCA Civ 2844 (the McCloud/Sargeant judgment). 

Lexis®Library update: The aim of the update is to support pension managers and practitioners with processing immediate detriment cases.

Police Pension Schemes

The updated technical note for the Police Pension Schemes provides guidance on processing certain immediate detriment cases ahead of legislation in order to address the age discrimination identified by the Court of Appeal in the McCloud/Sargeant judgment. Immediate detriment refers to those members who have already retired or will do so before the remedy to the discrimination is implemented. The update relates to existing informal and non-statutory guidance, originally issued in August 2020, and is intended to support police force pension managers and practitioners to administer certain immediate detriment cases (as defined). While the guidance is intended to provide informal advice, the Home Office warns that the overall responsibility for interpreting and applying the pension scheme regulations remains with each chief constable as the relevant scheme manager.

Fire Pension Schemes

A corresponding update has been prepared at the request of the Fire Brigades Union and the Firefighters’ Pensions (England) Scheme Advisory Board to assist employers with immediate detriment cases specific to members of the Fire Pension Schemes in relation to the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme. This notes that the guidance is informal and does not place any legal obligations on Fire and Rescue Authorities (FRAs). The guidance also notes that it should not be seen as providing a definitive resolution, but a tool used by FRAs to progress any immediate detriment cases. The guidance outlines that it should not be seen as providing a definitive resolution to all of the consequences arising from the discrimination, rather as a way to progress certain immediate detriment cases. The guidance is also to be kept under review as all the cases processed using the guidance will need to be revisited once the full detail of the government’s approach is finalised, and legislation is in place. Legislation is expected to be in place by October 2023.

Sources:

• Police pension schemes: Home Office informal immediate detriment guidance

• Firefighters’ Pension Schemes: Home Office Guidance on treatment of ‘Immediate Detriment’ cases

This content was first published by LNB News / Lexis®Library, a LexisNexis® company, on 14 June 2021 and is published with permission. Further information can be found at: www.lexisnexis.co.uk.

Categories: Legal News , Pensions , Regulatory
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll