Mr D Beattie and 16 others v 20-20 Trustee Services Limited and 1 other — 2022

At the preliminary hearing on 10 January 2022, Employment Judge Gordon Walker considered claims by Mr D Beattie and 16 others concerning the T&N Retirement Benefits Scheme. The claimants alleged that the first respondent, as trustee and responsible person for the scheme, had treated them less favourably because of age by reducing and capping pension payments under the Pensions Act 2004 when they were below normal pension age at the assessment date. No evidence was heard; the dispute was determined on submissions and authorities.

The main issue was whether Article 3 of the Equality Act (Age Exceptions for Pension Schemes) Order 2010, which excepts rules and decisions relating to rights accrued or benefits payable in respect of service before 1 December 2006, could lawfully be applied. The tribunal held that the claimants had an ongoing legal relationship with the first respondent after 1 December 2006 because pension payments continued and were later recalculated and uplifted. It rejected the submission that the position was permanently fixed when pensionable service ended, when payments first came into payment, or when the assessment period began.

Applying the future effects principle discussed in Innospec Ltd and others v Walker, the tribunal concluded that the point of unequal treatment was when the pension fell to be paid, not when the underlying entitlement accrued. It accepted the claimants' argument that the PPF cap was a restriction on benefits, not a separate accrued right, and distinguished Carter and another v Chief Constable of Essex Police on the basis that, unlike that case, the present claims concerned an ongoing pension relationship rather than a right extinguished long before the new law. The tribunal therefore held that Article 3, insofar as it authorised a restriction of pension payments related to pre-1 December 2006 service, was incompatible with the Framework Directive and was disapplied, and that the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claims. The case was then listed for a further preliminary hearing on 22 March 2022.