Part-time judges have lost their Employment Appeal Tribunal appeal against findings that they were not treated less favourably than their full-time peers in respect of their pensions.

When the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (JUPRA) came into force on 31 March 1995, circuit judges were given the option to join the new scheme or remain in their existing scheme under the Judicial Pensions Act 1981 (JPA).

The claimants, who were serving as recorders when JUPRA came into force, argued they were treated less favourably when they were appointed circuit judges years later because they had no right to remain on JPA-equivalent terms.

However an employment tribunal ruled that the Ministry of Justice did not treat the judges, part of a larger group of circuit and retired circuit judges, less favourably than comparable full-time judges. The judges appealed.

In His Honour Timothy Clayson & Ors v Ministry of Justice & Anor, the Honourable Mr Justice Kerr dismissed the appeal, finding it ‘must…be accepted that the claimants were not treated less favourably than circuit judges while sitting as recorders, in any way except that which has already been remedied’.

He added that the remedy of being invited into the fee-paid judges’ pension scheme is ‘accepted as a full and complete remedy for the wrong of having been denied access to a pension scheme while serving as recorders’.

The reasoning of the employment judge was not flawed and the grounds of appeal were ‘not well founded’, the judge concluded, adding: ‘The claimants’ sense of grievance is understandable but I think the judge was right to decide that the treatment they received in respect of their pension entitlement was, other than the discrimination that has already been remedied, not caused by their part-time working as recorders before becoming circuit judges.’