Insights / News
Insights / News
Events, Personal Injury 25 Jan, 2023
Claims had been brought by a group of salaried judges under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. Representative claims from that group were determined by the Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) in December 2021. Three of the representative claimants were salaried Circuit Judges who each had authorisation to sit in the High Court under s.9(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. They claimed that, when doing so, despite such sittings taking place within their salaried time, they were part-time workers entitled to be paid equivalently to salaried judges of the High Court. They were successful in establishing part-time worker discrimination in the ET. A similar claim brought by a salaried District Judge in respect of his Recorder sittings occurring in his salaried time was also heard. This claim also succeeded. However, the ET rejected the claim of a salaried Circuit Judge in respect of his sittings in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) under s.9(1). See here for the ET’s reasoned decision: EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (publishing.service.gov.uk).
The Ministry of Justice and Lord Chancellor appealed this decision on several grounds, the majority of which were accepted by the EAT (Mrs Justice Heather Williams DBE presiding). In a detailed decision, the EAT found that the ET had committed a fundamental error of law in its approach to the question of whether the claimants were part-time workers, by taking a narrow approach to this question wrongly focussing only on the aspect of the work which was alleged to be part-time work. This error, according to the EAT, infected the ET’s approach to the case also undermining its conclusions on the questions of comparison, causation, and objective justification. However, the EAT went on to find that there had also been material and freestanding errors of law in respect of the questions of causation and objective justification.
Read the full decision here; Ministry of Justice & Anor v R Dodds & Ors (PART-TIME WORKERS)  EAT 31 (07 March 2023)
The claimant judges now have a period of time in which to consider whether to make any further appeal. Subject to that, the matter has been remitted by the EAT to a differently constituted ET for a fresh determination of all issues.
The Ministry of Justice and Lord Chancellor have been represented at all stages of these proceedings by Andrew Allen KC and Alexander Line.
Andrew Allen KC has a successful employment and discrimination practice encompassing TUPE, contractual disputes, discrimination, equal pay, restrictive covenants, unfair dismissal, redundancy, working time, minimum wage, breach of contract, parental and carer’s rights, remuneration and bonuses. He appears in the ET, EAT, County Court, High Court and Court of Appeal as well as in internal and professional disciplinary and regulatory disputes. He has appeared in the employment tribunals in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.
Alexander Line has significant experience of representing both employers and employees relating to a broad range of sectors in Employment Tribunal proceedings, ranging from providing strategic advice, attending preliminary hearings, through to undertaking complex multi-week trials. He has experience of appearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal in employment cases.
To find out more, contact Nick Levett on +44 (0)20 7427 4908 for a confidential discussion.
News, Employment 10 Mar, 2023
Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)