header-logo header-logo

Pension forecast

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

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

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