Six High Court Judges have brought discrimination claims against the Ministry of Justice, at a hearing due to begin this week. The six (reported to be Sir Nicholas Mostyn, Sir Roderick Newton, Sir Philip Moor, Dame Lucy Theis, Sir Richard Arnold and Sir Rabinder Singh) claim they were unfairly disadvantaged by cuts in their pensions as a result of reforms to the judicial pension scheme that came into force in April 2015. Their claims include challenges on the basis of race and sex, as well as age, discrimination.
17 November 2016
Judges discrimination claim
MOVERS & SHAKERS
NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law
Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’
Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris
Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires
Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton
Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates
NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
