header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
08 March 2013 / Anna Macey
Issue: 7551 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Pension forecast

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll