Robert Campbell Second Claimant: Bruce McQueen Third Claimant: Douglas McGuire Fourth Claimant: William Mack v London North Eastern Railway Limited — 2025

The claimants, Robert Campbell, Bruce McQueen, Douglas McGuire and William Mack, were former drivers whose employment ended by reason of ill-health retirement after they had each reached age 65. They did not challenge their dismissals or the dismissal process. Their claims concerned London North Eastern Railway Limited's refusal to pay benefits under its Ill Health Severance Arrangements in the Professional Driver Agreement. They alleged direct and indirect age discrimination because the IHSA cap reduced entitlement to zero for drivers aged 65 or over.

The tribunal found that the claimants had no entitlement to a lump sum under IHSA b(i) because that provision applied to service not concurrent with membership of the Railways Pension Scheme, and each claimant had the maximum 40 years of reckonable pensionable service. It also held that any comparison with Mr Moran and Mr Hanratty, who were also over 65 and had received IHSA payments, could not establish direct age discrimination because they were in the same age group as the claimants. The tribunal found that those two payments were made in error and did not show a conscious decision to waive the age cap.

For the pleaded comparators, Mr Newton and Mr Batey, the respondent accepted that both were aged 62 at ill-health dismissal and received IHSA payments. The tribunal accepted that the claimants were treated less favourably and suffered a detriment because the age cap meant they received no b(ii) continuing weekly payment. The central issue was therefore whether the respondent had shown objective justification for direct and indirect age discrimination.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent pursued legitimate aims of allocating financial support for ill-health retirement in a fair and equitable way, providing that support in a financially responsible manner, and cushioning the financial blow for younger employees who were less likely to have access to unreduced pension income. It did not accept that avoiding a windfall or maintaining trade union relationships were established on the facts as aims being pursued in the relevant way. It held that the accepted aims together amounted to inter-generational fairness and met the Seldon social policy threshold for direct age discrimination.

On proportionality, the tribunal found that drivers could access 100% occupational pension benefits between ages 60 and 64 depending on scheme section, that the claimants had access to unreduced occupational pensions, and that state pension was near reach at age 66. It held that age 65 was not arbitrary or irrational, that tracking state pension age would erode the accepted aims, and that clear rules were needed for a collective scheme rather than individual means testing. Applying the Elias three-stage test, it concluded that the age cap was appropriate and reasonably necessary. Both the direct and indirect age discrimination claims were dismissed, and no remedy was awarded.