Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Chief Constable of Derbyshire v Clark & Anor [2023]
Chief Constable of Derbyshire v Clark & Anor [2023]
Published on: 31/10/2023
Issues Covered: Discrimination
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Jason Elliott BL Lecturer in Law and Barrister
Jason Elliott BL Lecturer in Law and Barrister

Jason Elliott was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2013 and is the Associate Head of School of Law at Ulster University.  As a practising barrister, he has developed a largely civil practice representing individuals, companies and public bodies in litigation. This covers a wide range of areas including personal injuries, wills and employment law. In terms of employment law, he has represented both applicants and respondents in the Industrial Tribunal.   At Ulster University, Jason lectures extensively on the civil areas of practise such as Equity and Trusts and delivers employment law lectures for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.

Background

Background: 

The issue related to Regulation 12 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 which provided for a lump sum gratuity where the individual was injured on duty without their own fault, they had ceased to be a member of the police force and within 12 months of the injury were totally and permanently disabled.  The claimants had received an injury award under Regulation 11 when they retired on the grounds of permanent disabilityHowever, they were refused a Regulation 12 gratuity as their permanent disablement came more than 12 months after their injuries. 

The argument raised by the claimants was that the refusal of Regulation 12 amounted to disability discrimination.   The respondents argued that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint. 

Outcome: 

The Tribunal, at first instance, held that it did have jurisdiction to deal with the complaint on the basis that it was part of an occupational pension scheme and that was allowed under Section 61 of the Equality Act 2010.   The occupational pension scheme being defined under the Pension Schemes Act 1993, Section 1The first issue for the EAT was to determine whether this decision was correct and if benefits on ‘retirement’ or ‘termination of service’ amounted to an occupational pension schemeThe second issue was whether the benefit payable under the Regulations amounted to pay so that a remedy had to be provided under the EU Directives on equal treatment. 

The EAT allowed the appeal.   It was held that the gratuitous payment under Regulation 12 did not fall within the definition of an occupational pension scheme.   Regulation 12 did not require a causal link between the officer’s service, the injury, and the subsequent disablementIt could be the case that an individual ceases to be a member of the police force and then they subsequently become disabledTherefore, the benefit did not arise on cessationThe EAT went on to cite that if Parliament had wanted the benefit to be categorised as an occupational pension scheme then it would have done so in the Regulations as it had done elsewhere. Instead, it did not and the inference was that Parliament had done so deliberately, that being to show that it was not part of the occupational pension scheme. 

In terms of the second issue relating to EU Law the EAT held that the gratuity was not in consideration for work.   The lack of relationship with the period of service demonstrated that it was related more so to social policy rather than the relationship of employmentAccordingly, it was not categorised as pay for the purpose of the Directive. 

Practical Guidance for Employers: 

This case demonstrates a fairly novel area of whether a payment is categorised as part of an occupational pension scheme.   It is important from the perspective of Tribunal action when it comes to discrimination action as it would only relate to those matters which are seen as being related to employment and occupational as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdictionIn this case, the Tribunal found that the gratuity was there as a greater part of ‘social policy’ and as a result was not to be justiciable by the Tribunal in this regard. 

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 31/10/2023