Joshua Cainer appears in High Court appeal clarifying Crombie Regulations

The High Court has clarified the approach to calculating statutory compensation for loss of office in respect of lost pension rights under the ‘Crombie Regulations.’ Joshua Cainer was instructed as sole counsel for the successful respondent.

On 30 January 2026 the High Court (Hill J) handed down judgment in Secretary of State for Justice v White [2026] EWHC 163 (Admin) dismissing the appeal of the Secretary of State for Justice concerning the proper interpretation of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 (Compensation) Regulations 1978 (known as the ‘Crombie Regulations’). Joshua Cainer was instructed as sole counsel for the appeal in the High Court by John McMahon on behalf of Mr White, the successful respondent.

The Crombie Regulations are designed to provide remedy financial losses arising from loss of office or loss or diminution of emoluments in respect of Justices’ Clerks by providing compensation for different forms of loss. They are part of a series of legislative provisions known as the ‘Crombie’ legislation or code which apply to various different public sector offices and employment.

Mr White was a Justices’ Clerk for a number of years before reluctantly agreeing to take redundancy in 2005 as part of the Government policy to reduce the number of Justices’ Clerks. Throughout his service he was a member of the Local Government Pension Scheme (the ‘LGPS’). Upon his loss of office aged 50 he was paid his LGPS lump sum and started to receive his LGPS annual pension. This case concerned his entitlement to ‘retirement compensation’ under the Crombie Regulations, paid from age 70, which the parties agreed is designed to be equivalent to the LGPS annual pension and lump sum that Mr White would have received had he remained in office until the normal retirement age of 70 and not lost his office at an earlier date.

After the Secretary of State’s determination of what retirement compensation was to be paid when Mr White turned 70, Mr White (at that time acting in person) appealed to the Employment Tribunal for it to determine certain “compensation questions” under the Crombie Regulations. Following concessions made by the Secretary of State, the parties agreed the retirement compensation lump sum to which Mr White was entitled. This sum included an uprating factor to reflect the pension increases which Mr White would have received had he remained in office until, retired at, and taken benefits, at age 70. The sole remaining issue concerned the deduction to be made under regulation 30(3)(b) of the Crombie Regulations which provided that “Where compensation for loss of office is payable under these Regulations to or in respect of any person and that person … is or are also entitled … to a superannuation benefit under his last relevant pension scheme in respect of any service of which account was taken in calculating the compensation … (b) any of that compensation which is payable … and which is payable as a lump sum shall be reduced by the amount of any lump sum superannuation benefit …”.

Mr White’s case was that the only sum to be deducted was the LGPS lump sum actually paid in 2005. The Secretary of State contended that if, as the parties agreed, the retirement compensation lump sum was uprated by inflation, then the LGPS lump sum to be deducted must similarly be uprated – notwithstanding that such a ‘notional’ sum was one to which Mr White was not entitled and from which he never benefited.

Employment Judge Knowles found in favour of Mr White at first instance. Unusually, appeals under the Crombie Regulations fall outside the jurisdiction of the EAT and so the Secretary of State appealed to the Administrative Court on a point of law under s.11(1) of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992.

Joshua was instructed for the High Court appeal. Hill J dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal on the basis that Mr White’s case better reflected, in particular, the wording of the regulations, the legislative intention, the terms of a previous compromise agreement reflecting the compensation envisaged by the parties, and the approach of other government departments described in other previous cases.

Find out more

Joshua has a broad civil practice which covers pensions, commercial and chancery, public law and employment and discrimination. He was appointed to the Attorney General’s C Panel of Counsel in September 2025 and is ranked in Band 5 for Employment and as a Rising Star for Pensions by Legal 500.

To find out more about Joshua, click here or contact contact Matt Sale on +44 (0)20 7427 4910 or Chris Rowe on +44 (0)207 427 4911 for a confidential discussion.

News 2 Feb, 2026