Mr A Short QC of Counsel Ms L Seymour of Counsel For First, Second, Third & Fourth v London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and Others — 2017

The tribunal heard lead claims challenging the transitional protection in the Firefighters Pension Scheme 2015. The claimants were unprotected firefighters who moved into the 2015 scheme on 1 April 2015, while older comparators either stayed in the Firefighters Pension Scheme 1992 or received tapered protection. The tribunal treated the case as one about the transitional provisions only, not a challenge to the 2015 scheme as a whole.

On the age claim, the tribunal identified the Government's aim as protecting those closest to pension age from the effects of pension reform, recognising their greater expectation that retirement terms would not change significantly at the end of their careers, avoiding a cliff edge between protected and unprotected groups, and maintaining consistency across the public sector. It rejected the submission that the measure was simply cost-saving and applied the social-policy approach to justification under Seldon and Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78.

On proportionality, the tribunal held that drawing the line at ten years from normal pension age, with a four-year taper, was within the Government's discretion. It accepted evidence that those nearer retirement had less time to adjust, including in relation to lifestyle and financial planning, and it also took account of evidence about firefighter fitness and the difficulties some older firefighters might face in continuing to work to age 60. The tribunal considered alternative approaches advanced by the claimants, but held that the fact other lines could have been drawn did not make the chosen line unlawful.

The tribunal therefore dismissed the direct age discrimination claims. It also dismissed the equal pay claims, holding that the relevant factor was age rather than sex, and that the claimants had not established a successful material factor case. The tribunal further said that, even if sex or race discrimination had to be justified in the alternative, the respondents had established objective justification.

The tribunal accepted that the transitional protection had a disparate impact as between men and women, and as between white and BME firefighters, but it did not find unlawful sex or race discrimination. The piggy-back equal pay claims by the additional claimants failed because the principal equal pay claims failed. No monetary award was made.