header-logo header-logo

08 March 2013 / Anna Macey
Issue: 7551 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Pension forecast

Anna Macey examines the impact of O’Brien v Ministry of Justice on the issue of pension entitlement

On 6 February 2013 the Supreme Court unanimously held that the Part-time Workers Regulations entitled a fee paid recorder to a judicial pension (O’Brien v Ministry of Justice [2013] UKSC 6).

The facts

Mr O’Brien was a self-employed barrister who sat as a part-time recorder from 1978 until his retirement in 2005. Upon his retirement he requested a pension from the then Department of Constitutional Affairs. Judicial pensions were governed by the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993, and O’Brien’s request was refused because he had not held a qualifying judicial office under that Act. Further, European law did not entitle him to a pension because he was an office holder and not a worker.

In 2005 O’Brien commenced proceedings before an employment tribunal claiming, among other things, that he had been discriminated against because he was a part-time worker.

In 1997 an EU Framework Agreement on part-time work was concluded, with the aim of eliminating discrimination

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll