Introduction

The case of Clark & Anor v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary & Ors ([2024] EWCA Civ 676) marks a significant development in the interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 concerning the jurisdiction of employment tribunals. The appellants, Ms. Clark and Mrs. Bell, both former police officers, challenged the denial of a disablement gratuity under regulation 12 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006. This denial was based on the fact that their total and permanent disablement occurred more than twelve months after the injury sustained in the line of duty. The core legal question revolved around whether the employment tribunal possessed jurisdiction to hear claims of unlawful discrimination under sections 15 or 19 of the Equality Act 2010, particularly when the benefit in question did not qualify as part of an occupational pension scheme under section 61 of the Act.

Summary of the Judgment

Initially, the employment tribunal asserted jurisdiction under section 61 of the Equality Act 2010, categorizing the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 as an occupational pension scheme. However, upon appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) disagreed, determining that regulation 12 did not fall within the definition of an occupational pension scheme as defined by section 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993. Consequently, the EAT held that the employment tribunal lacked jurisdiction under section 61. The appellants then sought to amend their grounds of appeal to include a challenge under section 108 of the Equality Act 2010, which deals with discrimination arising out of a relationship that has ended.

The Court of Appeal, through the judgment delivered by Lords Warby and Underhill, allowed this amendment. The court concluded that even though regulation 12 does not qualify as an occupational pension scheme, the nature of the alleged discrimination—related to access to statutory benefits following the termination of employment—falls within the ambit of section 108. This interpretation ensures that employment tribunals retain jurisdiction to hear such discrimination claims, thereby extending the protective scope of the Equality Act 2010.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several key precedents to elucidate the interpretation of "occupational pension schemes" and the scope of post-employment discrimination:

• Parlett v Guppys (Bridport) Ltd (No 2) [2000] Pensions LR 195: Emphasized a liberal interpretation of occupational pension schemes.
• Westminster City Council v Haywood [1998] Ch. 377: Reinforced the broad understanding of pension schemes within employment contexts.
• City and County of Swansea v Johnson [1999] Ch. 189: Highlighted that benefits payable on termination can qualify a scheme as an occupational pension scheme.
• Rhys-Harper v Relaxion Group Plc [2003] UKHL 33: Addressed post-employment discrimination, influencing the interpretation of section 108.
• Rowstock Ltd v Jessemey [2014] EWCA Civ 185: Confirmed that section 108 applies to discrimination actions closely connected to former employment relationships.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal meticulously dissected the definition of an occupational pension scheme under section 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, emphasizing that for a scheme to qualify, benefits must be payable "on" specific events—retirement, attainment of a particular age, or termination of service. Regulation 12 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006, which mandated a disablement gratuity contingent upon conditions not directly tied to these events, failed to meet this criterion. The absence of a causal link between the cessation of service and the onset of disability within the specified timeframe meant that regulation 12 did not constitute an occupational pension scheme.

However, the court recognized that the alleged discrimination arose from the rules governing statutory benefits linked to the appellants' former roles as police officers. This connection to a previously existing employment relationship invoked section 108 of the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits discrimination arising out of and closely connected to past relationships. The court held that such claims do not require the benefits in question to be part of an occupational pension scheme, thereby affirming the employment tribunal's jurisdiction under section 108.

Impact

This judgment has far-reaching implications for discrimination law and the operational jurisdiction of employment tribunals:

• Expanded Jurisdiction: Employment tribunals can now hear discrimination claims that arise from statutory benefit schemes not classified as occupational pension schemes, provided they are closely connected to the claimant's former employment.
• Clarification of Section 108: The decision reinforces the applicability of section 108 to post-employment discrimination, ensuring protection extends beyond the tenure of employment.
• Broader Protective Scope: Employers and statutory bodies must now be more cognizant of their obligations under the Equality Act 2010, even in the administration of benefits outside traditional pension schemes.
• Guidance for Future Cases: The judgment provides a framework for distinguishing between occupational pension schemes and other benefit schemes, aiding in the adjudication of similar cases.

Overall, the decision ensures that individuals are afforded robust protection against discrimination related to statutory benefits, irrespective of whether those benefits fall within the narrowly defined ambit of occupational pension schemes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Occupational Pension Scheme

An occupational pension scheme, as defined under section 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, is a pension arrangement that provides benefits upon specific events such as retirement, reaching a certain age, or termination of service. These schemes are typically established by employers and are integral to employment benefits.

Equality Act 2010: Sections 61 and 108

Section 61: Deals with non-discrimination in occupational pension schemes. It prohibits discrimination in the administration of pension benefits, ensuring that individuals are not treated less favorably based on protected characteristics.

Section 108: Addresses discrimination that arises out of a relationship that has ended, such as former employment. It extends protections against discrimination to conduct that is closely connected to the past relationship, even if the discriminatory actions occur after the relationship has terminated.

Disablement Gratuity

A disablement gratuity is a lump-sum payment made to individuals who have been permanently and totally disabled due to an injury sustained during the execution of their duties. Under regulation 12 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006, this gratuity is contingent upon the disability occurring within twelve months of the injury, a condition central to this case.

Jurisdiction of Employment Tribunals

Employment tribunals possess the authority to adjudicate disputes related to employment law. Their jurisdiction is defined by specific sections of the Equality Act 2010. Initially, jurisdiction was asserted under section 61, but this case extends it to include section 108, thereby broadening the scope of what constitutes a valid discrimination claim within employment-related contexts.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Clark & Anor v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary & Ors significantly broadens the interpretive framework of the Equality Act 2010. By affirming that employment tribunals have jurisdiction under section 108 for discrimination claims arising out of terminated employment relationships, even when specific benefit schemes do not fall under occupational pension schemes, the judgment ensures enhanced protection for former employees. This ruling not only clarifies the boundaries of tribunal jurisdiction but also underscores the comprehensive intent of equality legislation to safeguard individuals against discrimination in various facets of employment and post-employment interactions. Future cases involving statutory benefits and their alignment with equality protections can draw substantial guidance from this landmark judgment, promoting a more inclusive and equitable legal landscape.