Pelter v Buro Four Project Services Ltd (Age Discrimination): EAT 14 Jul 2022

The respondent agreed to provide access to the benefit of permanent health insurance to the claimant, rather than to pay the claimant sick pay if he became incapacitated from work. The respondent provided access to the benefit of permanent health insurance (‘the PHI scheme’) to the claimant for the period from when it entered into the PHI scheme with the insurer to the date upon which the claimant became incapacitated from work. During the period that the respondent provided access to the benefit of the PHI scheme, insurance that provided for payment of benefits that ended at 65 was lawful pursuant to paragraph 14 of schedule 9 EQA. The claimant’s state pension age increased to 66 after he had become incapacitated. By that time the respondent was no longer providing the benefit of access to the PHI scheme; the claimant was obtaining payments under PHI scheme funded by the insurer. Under the terms of the PHI scheme benefits were paid in accordance with the terms in force at the date that the claimant became incapacitated. It was the insurer, rather than the respondent, that ceased payment when the claimant reached 65. The employment tribunal correctly concluded that the claimant had not been subject to direct age discrimination by the respondent.


His Honour Judge James Tayler


[2022] EAT 105




England and Wales


Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.679497