Mrs M Newby and others (see Schedule) Mr M Paskins and others (see Schedule) v Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs and others (see Schedule) PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022

This was a preliminary hearing on sample claims challenging the Civil Service Compensation Scheme. The tribunal identified six sample cases across three groups: compulsory redundancy at or above normal pension age, voluntary redundancy at or above normal pension age, and voluntary redundancy within 15 months of normal pension age. The respondents conceded that, in the application of the Scheme to the sample claimants, they treated them less favourably because of age within section 13(1) of the Equality Act 2010.

The issues were whether the taper and minimum payment provisions in the Scheme were justified under section 13(2). The tribunal accepted the respondents' evidence that the Scheme is compensatory in character, closely linked to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme, and designed to take account of length of service, proximity to normal pension age, and the availability of pension benefits. It accepted the respondents' case that the relevant aims included providing appropriate compensation for redundancy, bridging any gap to normal pension age, avoiding a cliff-edge at normal pension age, ensuring a minimum payment, allocating limited public funds fairly, taking length of service into account, and using clear and administratively workable rules.

The tribunal found that those aims were genuine and legitimate, and that the taper and minimum payment provisions were proportionate means of achieving them. It placed weight on Mr Spain's analysis showing that, with the taper, the relationship between compensation and potential loss remained within a narrower range, whereas without the taper older employees close to or beyond normal pension age would receive proportionately more. It also accepted that the minimum payment ensured that redundant civil servants with at least six years' service received at least 6 months' pay or statutory redundancy pay if higher.

The tribunal therefore concluded that the respondents had established their justification defence. The sample claims failed. It also rejected the claimants' argument based on the public sector equality duty, noting that section 149 did not apply to the December 2010 version of the Scheme and that, in any event, the point had not been pleaded as a standalone cause of action. The judgment was sent to the regional employment judges and the President for case management of the wider group of claims.