Case details
Summary
A public authority may draw a date-based boundary when reforming public-sector pension arrangements, provided the distinction has a rational connection with the policy objective and is proportionate. Indirect age discrimination arising from such a boundary is justified where the date reflects material changes in service conditions and expected retirement circumstances. Historical nationality-based differences in Gurkha pensions may remain justified even where later immigration changes alter the expected place of retirement. The duty under section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 is a duty to have due regard to relevant needs, not a duty to achieve a particular result or to undertake a formal equality assessment. Substantial consultation and consideration of inequality may satisfy the duty without express statutory wording.
Factual background
The claimants, comprising the British Gurkha Welfare Society and two retired Gurkhas, challenged the Gurkha Offer to Transfer and the Armed Forces (Gurkha Pensions) Order 2007. The arrangements allowed transfer from the Gurkha Pension Scheme to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. Service after 1 July 1997 received year-for-year credit, while earlier service was transferred on an actuarial basis. The claimants alleged irrationality, discrimination under Article 14 read with Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR, and failure to comply with section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. The Ministry of Defence relied on earlier decisions concerning Gurkha pension arrangements, including R (Purja & others) v Ministry of Defence and R (Gurung) v Ministry of Defence.
Held
- Rationality and age discrimination. The challenge to the 1 July 1997 boundary failed. The date marked the material change from Far Eastern to United Kingdom basing, together with the associated changes in immigration rights and expected retirement circumstances. The choice of mixed year-for-year and actuarial transfer was therefore within the range of reasonable responses available to the decision-maker.
- The court followed the reasoning in R (Gurung) v Ministry of Defence, while recognising that one High Court judge should depart from another only where satisfied that the earlier decision was wrong. The claimants identified no material factual change affecting that conclusion. Age was not treated as a suspect ground requiring the level of justification applicable to race or sex. Any indirect age discrimination was justified and proportionate.
- Nationality discrimination. The historical differences in Gurkha pay and pensions were justified by the distinctive basis of recruitment, service and discharge, including the expectation before 1997 that Gurkhas would retire in Nepal and the availability of earlier pensions and extended leave. Later immigration changes did not invalidate the distinction between service before and after 1 July 1997. The reasoning of the Court of Appeal in R (Purja & others) v Ministry of Defence continued to provide ample justification.
- Section 71 duty. The duty under section 71(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 required the Ministry to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and promote equality of opportunity and good relations. It did not require a particular outcome or a formal equality impact assessment. Applying R (Baker and others) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the question was whether the decision-making process had substantively considered the statutory needs. The review involved extensive consultation and addressed inequality between Gurkhas and the wider Army. The duty was therefore satisfied.
- The claim was dismissed. The judge indicated that, even if a ground had succeeded, delay would have made relief inappropriate because reopening the arrangements would cause significant detriment to good administration.
The court’s approach to earlier authorities
This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.
Appellate history
This was a first-instance judicial review. The judgment recorded that permission to appeal in R (Gurung) v Ministry of Defence had been refused by the Court of Appeal on 6 November 2008.
Appeal to higher court
Key cases cited
This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.
Cases citing this case
This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.