Dermod O’Brien, a retired part-time judge, has won his pensions case at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in a ruling that could cost the government £750m in extra pension payments.
O’Brien argued that he should not be excluded from the judicial pension scheme on the basis that he was a part-time judge. The CJEU case addressed whether the years before 7 April 2000 count for the purposes of calculating pension benefits for part-time workers. The year 2000 was the deadline for transposing European Directive 97/81.
The CJEU held that the periods of service prior to the 2000 deadline should be taken into account when calculating pensions for part-time workers, just as they would be for comparable full-time workers.
O’Brien was appointed as a Recorder on 1 March 1978, holding office until his retirement on 31 March 2005. His success means his pension will be based on 27 years’ rather than five years’ service.
The MoJ stated, in its Annual Report and Accounts 2017-18 (at p 153) that: ‘Should the Department lose the appeal, the combined cost of providing additional pension entitlement and providing it to additional claimants is estimated to be up to £750m.’
Caroline Jones, solicitor at Browne Jacobson, who acted for O’Brien, said her client was ‘delighted that parity has finally been achieved.
‘This judgment means that the value of pensions for those appointed pre-2000 could be very significant depending on the length of their pre-2000 service.’
O’Brien said: ‘It has been a hard slog over 13 years to overcome this particular aspect of unlawful discrimination.’
In 2013, the Supreme Court held that Recorders, who are fee-paid judges, are entitled to a judicial pension and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) had breached legislation on part-time workers by denying them access to the pension scheme.
The case was then referred back to the employment tribunal to determine the amount of the pension. There, the MoJ argued that only post-2000 service should be taken into account. This argument was appealed through the courts until the Supreme Court referred the matter to the CJEU.
An MoJ spokesperson said: ‘We recognise and value the important role of the judiciary and are carefully considering the court’s judgment.’
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
