A legal dispute over pensions, affecting up to 8,000 part-time judges, has been referred to the European Court of Justice
A legal dispute over pensions, affecting up to 8,000 part-time judges, has been referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ)
O’Brien v Ministry of Justice [2010] UKSC concerns retired recorder Dermod O’Brien QC’s claim that he was entitled to a judicial pro rata pension of full-time circuit judges. O’Brien claims he was unlawfully discriminated against, contrary to the Part-Time Workers Directive.
The dispute centres on whether part-time judges are employed and therefore protected by the Directive. The Ministry of Justice says they are not. O’Brien claims they are, even though they are paid a daily “fee” rather than a “salary”—they are paid pro rata to full-time judges and are otherwise entitled to the same benefits.
The Supreme Court agreed with O’Brien’s argument, and concluded the judge’s office has many of the characteristics of employment. It has now asked the ECJ to decide whether it is open to national law to determine which employees are considered as workers for the purposes of the Directive or if this must be determined at European Union level.
Daphne Romney QC of Cloisters, says: “It’s unusual for the key players in the justice system to question just how justly they themselves are being treated.”
The ECJ is not expected to deliver its judgment until 2012.
