0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

judicial pension rights - O’Brien and the Advocate General’s opinion

29 November 2011

Whilst the final judgement is not anticipated until early 2012, Advocate General Kokott has now delivered her opinion.

Mr O’Brien, represented by Browne Jacobson LLP and Cloisters Chambers, brought a claim because, as a part-time, fee-paid judge, he was excluded from the judicial pension scheme. In July 2010 the Supreme Court sought ECJ input on:-

  • Can national law determine whether or not judges are “workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship”?
  • Can national law discriminate (a) between full time and part-time judges or (b) between different kinds of part-time judges in the provision of pensions?

The Advocate General considers that it is for national law to decide if a part-time judge is a worker, but there were limits to this discretion. Member States are not allowed to exclude complete categories of part-time worker.

The court does not need to follow the Advocate General’s opinion, but it unusual not to do so.

related opinions

Anti-social media - but when is it work related?

As the use of social media continues to increase, its overlap with working life is becoming more and more prevalent.

View blog

IR35 changes - six months and counting...

In his 2018 Autumn Budget, the then Chancellor, Phillip Hammond, announced a significant change to the way liability for IR35 breaches will be dealt with for private sector companies from April 2020.

View blog

Court of Appeal confirms all employment tribunal judgments must be published on the register, except in national security cases

Under the ET Rules, all judgments and accompanying written reasons must be published on a pubic register which the general public can access online.

View blog

Supreme Court backs employers seeking to enforce restrictive covenants: Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd

The Supreme Court in Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd has determined that where post-termination restrictive covenants (i.e. “non-compete” clauses) in employment contracts go further than reasonably necessary to protect an employer’s business interests, it can apply the ‘blue pencil test,’ severing the offending words and leaving the remaining enforceable clause in place.

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up