Introduction

The case of Miller & Ors v. Ministry of Justice ([2019] UKSC 60) addresses a critical issue concerning the commencement of the limitation period for pension claims by part-time judges under the Part-time Workers Directive (Directive 97/81) as implemented by the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (PTWR). The appellants, comprising four judges with various combinations of part-time and full-time judicial appointments, sought to claim pensions more than three months after the end of their part-time appointments, arguing that the relevant date for the limitation period should be their retirement date rather than the end of their part-time service.

Summary of the Judgment

The United Kingdom Supreme Court, led by Lord Carnwath and supported by Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Wilson, and Lady Arden, deliberated on whether the three-month limitation period for bringing a pension claim under the PTWR begins at the end of each part-time appointment or at the time of retirement. The court examined prior decisions, notably those in O Brien v Ministry of Justice, and considered the interpretation of relevant EU directives and domestic regulations. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, determining that the limitation period starts both at the end of each part-time appointment and at the point of retirement, thus permitting claims that were previously deemed out of time.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key precedents that shaped the court's reasoning:

• O Brien v Ministry of Justice (No 2) [2017] UKSC 46: This case established that pension entitlements accrued before the transposition deadline of the PTWD must be considered when calculating retirement pensions.
• Ten Oever v Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor het Glazenwassers en Schoonmaakbedrijf (Case C-109/91): This CJEU case was pivotal in determining how occupational pensions are treated under EU law, particularly regarding the accrual of pension rights over the period of service.
• Barclays Bank plc v Kapur [1991] 2 AC 355: This House of Lords decision influenced the understanding of when less favorable treatment occurs, emphasizing that such detriment is continuous over the period of employment.
• Walker v Innospec Ltd [2017] UKSC 47: This Supreme Court ruling clarified that unequal treatment occurs at the point when benefits (like pensions) are due to be paid, regardless of when the entitlement was accrued.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on interpreting when the "less favorable treatment" occurred under the PTWR. The appellants argued that the detriment—which is the denial of a pension based on part-time status—should be assessed both at the end of each part-time appointment and at retirement. The Ministry of Justice contended that the limitation period should only begin at retirement, aligning with the principle that pension rights are definitively acquired upon completion of service.

Lord Carnwath, for the majority, rejected the Ministry's narrow interpretation. Drawing from Barclays Bank plc v Kapur and Walker, the court emphasized that less favorable treatment occurs both during service (when the pension rights are denied) and at retirement (when the pension is due but not granted). Consequently, the limitation period should commence at both these points, allowing for claims to be brought either when the adverse treatment occurs or when the pension is not paid.

The court further noted the unique nature of judicial pensions under domestic law, which are not based on individual contracts but on qualifying judicial office. This necessitated a nuanced approach to interpreting the PTWR in the context of aggregated service across multiple appointments.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future pension claims under the PTWD and PTWR. By confirming that the limitation period can start both at the end of part-time service and at retirement, the Supreme Court has broadened the avenues through which part-time workers can seek redress for discriminatory pension practices. It ensures that individuals who may not have acted promptly after the end of their part-time service can still pursue valid claims upon retirement. Moreover, it reinforces the alignment of domestic regulations with EU directives concerning workers' rights, promoting fairness and equality in pension entitlements.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Part-time Workers Directive (PTWD) and Part-time Workers Regulations (PTWR)

The PTWD (Directive 97/81) aims to ensure that part-time workers receive equal treatment compared to full-time workers, preventing less favorable conditions solely based on their part-time status. The PTWR is the UK's implementation of this directive, translating its provisions into domestic law.

Limitation Period

A limitation period is the timeframe within which a legal claim must be filed. Under the PTWR, the primary limitation period for bringing a complaint is three months from the date when the less favorable treatment occurred.

Qualifying Judicial Office

Defined under the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993, a qualifying judicial office encompasses a range of judicial roles that qualify an individual for pension benefits. This includes various types of court judges and tribunal members, but notably excludes fee-paid part-time judges unless regulated otherwise.

Deferred Pay

Deferred pay refers to compensation earned during employment but paid out at a later date, typically as a pension upon retirement. In this context, the entitlement to a pension is considered deferred pay accruing over the period of service.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Miller & Ors v. Ministry of Justice [2019] UKSC 60 significantly clarifies the commencement of limitation periods for part-time judges seeking pension claims under the PTWD/PTWR. By establishing that less favorable treatment occurs both during service and at the point of pension payment, the judgment ensures broader protection against discriminatory pension practices. This ruling not only aligns domestic law with European directives but also reinforces the principle of equal treatment for part-time workers in the judicial sector, potentially influencing similar cases across other sectors and jurisdictions.