header-logo header-logo

Pay freezes, ‘costs plus’ & indirect discrimination

08 January 2021 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7915 / Categories: Features , Employment , Discrimination
printer mail-detail
35134
Charles Pigott takes the measure of the ‘costs plus’ rule of thumb in age discrimination cases
  • The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the discriminatory impact of slowing pay progression in the probation service could be justified in the context of the last public sector pay freeze.
  • The ruling examines the usefulness of the ‘costs plus’ test as a way of distinguishing between lawful and unlawful policies when these disadvantage protected groups.

The origins of the dispute in Heskett v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWCA Civ 1487, [2020] All ER (D) 72 (Dec) go back to the public sector pay freeze imposed by the coalition government after it took power in 2010. The Court of Appeal’s decision was announced two weeks before the 2020 spending review, in which the chancellor announced another pay freeze for the whole public sector, excluding the NHS.

The Court of Appeal, reaching the same conclusion as the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ((2019) UKEAT/0149/18, [2019] All ER (D) 12 (Jul)), dismissed

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll