Key Facts
- •Judicial review of HM Treasury's (HMT) 2021 Directions amending the Public Service Pensions (Valuation and Employer Costs Cap) (Amendment) Directions 2014.
- •Claimants: Fire Brigades Union (FBU) and British Medical Association (BMA), representing public sector pension scheme members.
- •Defendants: HMT and relevant Secretaries of State.
- •2021 Directions included the cost of the McCloud remedy (remedying unlawful age discrimination) within the Cost Control Mechanism (CCM).
- •Claimants argued the inclusion was unlawful due to misinterpretation of the 2013 Act, breach of legitimate expectation, and indirect discrimination.
Legal Principles
Statutory Interpretation
Various
Legitimate Expectation
Case law (e.g., Paponette v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago)
Padfield principle (unlawful frustration of statutory purpose)
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Article 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial)
European Convention on Human Rights
Indirect Discrimination
Equality Act 2010, section 19
Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)
Equality Act 2010, section 149
Tameside duty (reasonable inquiry)
Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council
Outcomes
Applications for judicial review dismissed.
Court found no legal basis for the claims. The court rejected the claimants' interpretations of the 2013 Act, finding the inclusion of McCloud remedy costs within the CCM to be lawful.