William James Quirk v Burton Hospital NHS Trust the National Health Service Pensions Agency: CA 12 Feb 2002

The applicant appealed a refusal to rule that the system of allowing females better retirement options than would be granted to him as a Health Service employee were sexually discriminatory. The difference arose because of differentials applied before the directive came into effect, by the 1980 regulations. The case fell within the rule in Barber, and therefore the Equal Treatment Directive did not apply. The 1995 Regulations had removed the difference, but was not retrospective.


Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Mummery and Lord Justice Buxton


Times 19-Feb-2002, Gazette 21-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 149




National Health Service Pension Scheme Regulations 1995 (1995 No 300), National Health Service (Superannuation) Regulations 1980 (1980 No 362), ECTreaty Art 141


England and Wales


CitedBarber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group ECJ 17-May-1990
Europa The benefits paid by an employer to a worker on the latter’s redundancy constitute a form of pay to which the worker is entitled in respect of his employment, which is paid to him upon termination of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.167627