header-logo header-logo

21 November 2022
Issue: 8004 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Pensions , Employment
printer mail-detail

Judges’ salary review delay

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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
back-to-top-scroll