Ms R Crasnow KC For the v Respondent — 2023

The three claimants were former assistant recorders and/or recorders who were later appointed as circuit judges in 2004, 2006 and 2007. They complained that, unlike circuit judges appointed before 31 March 1995, they were compulsorily enrolled in JUPRA on appointment as circuit judges and were not given the option to remain on JPA-equivalent terms. The tribunal accepted that recorders and circuit judges perform comparable work for the purposes of the Part-Time Workers Regulations and Directive, but held that the issue under JUPRA was different: whether appointment as a circuit judge was appointment to "some other qualifying judicial office" within section 1(1)(b)(ii).The tribunal found that, for JUPRA purposes, a recorder ceases to hold the office of recorder when appointed circuit judge and is appointed to some other qualifying judicial office. It also found, on the hypothetical assumption that a fee-paid scheme had existed under the older JPA framework, that the draft scheme would most probably have been separate for salaried circuit judges and fee-paid office-holders. The tribunal therefore held that the comparator relied on by the claimants was not apt unless that comparator was also appointed to some other qualifying judicial office.The tribunal further held that the claimants were not treated less favourably than comparable full-time workers on the ground that they were part-time workers. There was no less favourable treatment during their period of part-time service, because the recorders were retrospectively given JPA-equivalent terms. The complained-of difference arose when they were appointed circuit judges after 30 March 1995, at which point they were full-time workers and the effective and predominant cause of the different pension treatment was their appointment as circuit judges after that date, not their previous part-time status. The tribunal therefore dismissed the claims. It said that, if it had found otherwise unlawful less favourable treatment, the respondents would not have established objective justification.