header-logo header-logo

08 March 2013 / Anna Macey
Issue: 7551 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Pension forecast

Anna Macey examines the impact of O’Brien v Ministry of Justice on the issue of pension entitlement

On 6 February 2013 the Supreme Court unanimously held that the Part-time Workers Regulations entitled a fee paid recorder to a judicial pension (O’Brien v Ministry of Justice [2013] UKSC 6).

The facts

Mr O’Brien was a self-employed barrister who sat as a part-time recorder from 1978 until his retirement in 2005. Upon his retirement he requested a pension from the then Department of Constitutional Affairs. Judicial pensions were governed by the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993, and O’Brien’s request was refused because he had not held a qualifying judicial office under that Act. Further, European law did not entitle him to a pension because he was an office holder and not a worker.

In 2005 O’Brien commenced proceedings before an employment tribunal claiming, among other things, that he had been discriminated against because he was a part-time worker.

In 1997 an EU Framework Agreement on part-time work was concluded, with the aim of eliminating discrimination

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

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