Consultation on the proposed response to McCloud
Seeking views on proposals for addressing the discrimination identified in McCloud in respect of the judiciary.
In McCloud the Court of Appeal held that transitional protections provided to older judges as part of the 2015 judicial pension reforms constituted unlawful direct age discrimination.
From 1 April 2015, younger judges had been moved from their legacy schemes, Judicial Pension Scheme 1993 (JUPRA) or the fee-paid equivalent, Fee-Paid Judicial Pension Scheme 2015 (FPJPS), both of which were final salary tax-unregistered schemes, to New Judicial Pension Scheme 2015 (NJPS), a tax-registered career average scheme with a lower accrual rate. Judges closest to retirement were protected from the changes due to their age and remained in JUPRA/FPJPS. The court held that such protection unlawfully discriminated against younger judges.
MoJ is committed to addressing the discrimination for non-claimant judges affected by McCloud.
This consultation proposes that judges in scope are given a choice whether to have retrospectively accrued benefits in either JUPRA/FPJPS or NJPS from 1 April 2015. The choice would be made via a formal ‘options exercise’ after the end of the remedy period.