Case 3300432/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr J Jenkins (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2021

Case reference: 3300432/2022
Decision date: 16 August 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Alliott Members
Venue: Watford
Panel members: Ms B Robinson, Mr D Sutton

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr J Jenkins (counsel) For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, a pilot employed since 1979, advanced claims about PHI/PIP benefits, age discrimination, unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages. The disability discrimination claims were withdrawn before the hearing. The tribunal found that he was aware throughout that pilots had a contractual retirement age of 65 and that, under the aviation regulations, he could not continue as a commercial pilot after that age.

On the wages claim, the tribunal held that the 2015 and 2018 handbooks were non-contractual and that the settlement agreement did not give the claimant a contractual or other legal right to PHI or PIP benefits until age 66. It construed the agreement as referring to the PHI scheme in general, but found that the benefit entitlement remained contingent on continued employment, which ended at 65. The one contractual protection created by the settlement agreement was the respondent's obligation to continue employer pension contributions based on 100% of basic salary; if those contributions were not paid, the unlawful deduction claim succeeded to that extent, but the judgment did not quantify any sum.

On age discrimination, the tribunal held that moving the claimant from the old PHI arrangement to the 2021 PIP scheme from 16 August 2021 and removing proportionate benefit was not less favourable treatment because of age. It found that the appropriate comparator was a hypothetical under-60 pilot whose benefits had not already been funded, and that the new scheme pursued the legitimate aim of maintaining a commercially viable PHI arrangement and was proportionate. The claimant's dismissal on reaching 65 was direct age discrimination in principle, but the tribunal held that for pilots it was justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason, namely the contractual retirement age of 65, and the tribunal held the dismissal fair under section 98(4) ERA 1996. The wrongful dismissal claim was also dismissed because the termination was in accordance with the contractual retirement age and the claimant had more than three months' notice.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal held that the 2015 and 2018 handbooks were non-contractual and that the settlement agreement did not create a contractual or other legal right to PHI or PIP benefits until age 66. It found, however, that clause 3.4.2 of the settlement agreement gave the claimant a contractual right to employer pension contributions based on 100% of basic salary until retirement or dismissal. Any unlawful deduction arose only to the extent those pension contributions were not paid; the judgment did not quantify the sum.	Upheld	—	—
Age discrimination	The tribunal held that moving the claimant from the old PHI arrangement to the 2021 PIP scheme from 16 August 2021 and removing proportionate benefit was not less favourable treatment because of age. It found that the appropriate comparator was a hypothetical under-60 pilot whose benefits had not already been funded, and that the new scheme pursued the legitimate aim of maintaining a commercially viable PHI arrangement and was proportionate. The claimant's dismissal on reaching 65 was direct age discrimination in principle, but the tribunal held that for pilots it was justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.	Dismissed	Age	—
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason, namely the contractual retirement age of 65, and held the dismissal fair under section 98(4) ERA 1996.	Dismissed	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	The tribunal held that the termination was in accordance with the contractual retirement age and that the claimant had more than three months' notice, so there was no breach of contract as to notice.	Dismissed

Legal tests applied

12 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.