header-logo header-logo

Judges’ salary review delay

21 November 2022
Issue: 8004 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Pensions , Employment
printer mail-detail
The five-year review of the judicial salary structure has been postponed, the Lord Chancellor Dominic Raab has confirmed.

Writing to Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) interim chair Pippa Lambert last week, Raab said: ‘We are due to have a major review of the judicial salary structure, which usually takes place every five years.

‘I understand your concerns about starting a major review before a new judicial lead and permanent chair of the SSRB are appointed and so have taken the decision not to commission such a review this year.’

He said recruitment has been ‘stronger’ since the last major review in 2018 due to a new judicial pension scheme, but acknowledged there are ‘shortfalls in the Circuit Bench and the District Bench, and the level of fee paid judges applying for salaried office continues to be an issue. These areas would be a likely focus of a future major review’.

However, Raab asked for recommendations on the 2023-24 annual pay award for judges to be submitted by May 2023. He said this should ‘take account of evidence which my department will provide, including on the affordability of any award as well as evidence on recruitment, retention and diversity of judges’.

In April 2022, the Judicial Pension Scheme, a defined benefit scheme, was introduced. This replaced a variety of schemes introduced in 2015 which many judges found to be less beneficial than their previous arrangements. In the 2018 major review, the SSRB highlighted recruitment and retention problems at all levels of the judiciary due to the 2015 pension reforms.

Judicial salaries currently range from £91,217 for judges at the social entitlement chamber (asylum support tribunal, criminal injuries compensation tribunal and social security and child support tribunal) to £267,509 for the Lord Chief Justice.

District judges, employment tribunal judges and First-tier Tribunal judges receive £114,793 per year, Senior masters and registrars earn £148,820, and High Court judges receive £192,679. 

Issue: 8004 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Pensions , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll