The claimants each sought additional pensions, saying that discrimination laws which had come into effect (for part time workers and for sexual orientation) should be applied retrospectively.
Held: The decision was upheld. The ‘no retroactivity’ principle of EU law was ‘that EU legislation does not have retroactive effect unless, exceptionally, it is clear from its terms or general scheme that the legislator intended such an effect. The purpose to be achieved so requires and that the legitimate expectations of those concerned are duly respected.’ The Part Time Workers Directive did not apply retrospectively so as to bring periods of service performed before the directive came into effect into the calculation of the claimant’s pension entitlement.
Lewison LJ identified two relevant principles of EU law. First was the ‘no retroactivity’ principle and the ‘future effects’ principle. The first of these principles prescribed that ‘EU legislation does not have retroactive effect unless, exceptionally, it is clear from its terms or general scheme that the legislator intended such an effect, that the purpose to be achieved so requires and that the legitimate expectations of those concerned are duly respected’. Having found that to require payment of a spouse’s pension to Mr Walker’s husband, after Mr Walker’s death, would be to give the Framework Directive retrospective effect, it concluded that the no retroactivity principle precluded this. The second principle was that amending legislation applies immediately to the future effects of a situation which arose under the law as it stood before amendment, unless there was a specific provision to the contrary.
Judges:
Lord Dyson MR, Lewison, Underhill LJJ
Citations:
[2015] EWCA Civ 1000, [2016] ICR 182, [2015] WLR(D) 406, [2015] Pens LR 543, [2016] 1 CMLR 28, [2015] IRLR 1005
Links:
Statutes:
Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 1(2)(3), Council Directive 97/81/EC
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Department of Constitutional Affairs v O’Brien EAT 22-Apr-2008
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Claim in time and effective date of termination
Extension of time: just and equitable
Appeal against Chair’s exercise of discretion to extend time for a PTWR claim . .
See Also – O’Brien v Department for Constitutional Affairs CA 19-Dec-2008
The claimant was a part time recorder. He claimed to be entitled to a judicial pension.
Held: The Employment Appeal Tribunal was wrong to find an error of law in the decision of the Employment Tribunal to extend time; but the court declined to . .
At ECJ – O’Brien v Ministry of Justice ECJ 1-Mar-2012
1) European Union law must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the member states to define the concept of ‘workers who have an employment contract or an employment relationship’ in clause 2.1 of the Framework Agreement . . and in particular, to . .
At SC (1) – O’Brien v Ministry of Justice SC 6-Feb-2013
The appellant, a part time recorder challenged his exclusion from pension arrangements.
Held: The appeal was allowed. No objective justification has been shown for departing from the basic principle of remunerating part-timers pro rata . .
Appeal from – The Ministry of Justice v O’Brien EAT 4-Mar-2014
EAT PART TIME WORKERS
The calculation of the amount of pension to which a retired part-time judge is entitled under the Part-time Workers Directive and the consequential domestic regulations should, as a . .
Cited – Defrenne v Sabena (No 2) ECJ 8-Apr-1976
ECJ The principle that men and women should receive equal pay, which is laid down by article 119, is one of the foundations of the community. It may be relied on before the national courts. These courts have a . .
Cited by:
Cited – Emerald Supplies Ltd and Others v British Airways Plc ChD 4-Oct-2017
EC has sole jurisdiction over old cartels
Several claimants alleged that the defendant airway had been part of a cartel which had overcharged for freight services. The court now heard arguments about whether it had jurisdition to deal with claims which preceded the measures which had . .
Appeal from – O’Brien v Ministry of Justice SC 12-Jul-2017
The claimant challenged e pension arrangements made for part time judges.
Held: ‘The majority of the court are inclined to think that the effect of Directive 97/81 is that it is unlawful to discriminate against part-time workers when a . .
Appeal from – Walker v Innospec Ltd and Others SC 12-Jul-2017
The claimant appealed against refusal of his employer’s pension scheme trustees to include as a recipient of any death benefit his male civil partner.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The salary paid to Mr Walker throughout his working life was . .
Cited – Miller and Others v Ministry of Justice SC 16-Dec-2019
‘The issue in this appeal is when time starts to run for a claim by a part-time judge to a pension under the Part-time Workers’ Directive (Directive 97/81) (‘PTWD’), as applied by the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination, European
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.553048