Williams v Trustees of Swansea University Pension & Assurance Scheme

The Court of Appeal held that section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 does not permit a disabled person to complain of "unfavourable" treatment where the person has received an advantageous ill-health retirement benefit, but that advantage is smaller than the benefit which would have been payable to another disabled person with a different medical history. The court analysed the meaning of "unfavourably" in section 15 and concluded that it was not intended to be equivalent to every comparative detriment among disabled persons.

The claimant had received an enhanced ill-health pension calculated by reference to his actual part-time final pensionable salary under Rule 15.5 of the Scheme. The tribunal had found unfavourable treatment and rejected justification; the Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the respondents' appeal on unfavourable treatment and justification. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal and allowed the respondents' cross-appeal, substituting an order dismissing the claims.

The court emphasised that a disabled employee who is better off as a result of receiving immediate enhanced pension benefits cannot, merely because his enhancement is smaller than that payable to another disabled person whose disability arose differently, establish discrimination under section 15. The tribunal was also criticised for speculative reliance on hypothetical claims under other provisions (for example the reasonable adjustments duty).

Background and parties:

• The appellant, Andrew Williams, was an employee of Swansea University who suffered from disabilities (Tourette's syndrome, obsessive compulsive disorder and depression) and retired on ill health grounds at age 38.
• The respondents were the trustees of the Swansea University Pension & Assurance Scheme and Swansea University as principal employer.

Nature of the claim and procedural history:

• Mr Williams challenged the method of calculation of the enhancement to his ill-health retirement pension under the Scheme. The enhancement was calculated by reference to his actual part-time final pensionable salary rather than a full-time equivalent, producing a smaller enhancement than would have been payable to a disabled member whose incapacity arose suddenly while working full time.
• The claim before the employment tribunal was brought under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 (discrimination arising from disability) and section 61 (non-discrimination rule for occupational pension schemes). A proposed reasonable adjustments claim under section 20 was withdrawn.
• The employment tribunal (Cardiff) found for the claimant on unfavourable treatment and rejected justification. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (Langstaff J) allowed the respondents' appeal, overturning the tribunal's findings on unfavourable treatment and justification and dismissed the claimant's cross-appeal. The claimant obtained permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal; the respondents cross-appealed against the EAT's order to remit the case for rehearing.

Issues before the Court of Appeal:

• Whether the claimant had been "treated unfavourably" within the meaning of section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of something arising in consequence of his disability.
• Whether, if there was unfavourable treatment, the respondents could justify it as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (this was not reached on the court's preferred analysis).
• Whether the EAT was right to remit the matter for rehearing rather than dismissing the claim.

Court's reasoning and conclusions:

• The court concluded that "unfavourably" in section 15 is not intended to capture situations where a disabled person receives an advantageous outcome that is nevertheless less advantageous than that received by another disabled person with a different medical history. The word was to be read consistently with other uses in the Act (for example section 18) and was not coextensive with the broader concept of detriment used elsewhere.
• The claimant's receipt of immediate enhanced ill-health benefits placed him in a better position than he would have been had he not been eligible for ill-health retirement; the fact that some other disabled members might receive a larger enhancement did not amount to unlawful treatment under section 15.
• The tribunal had also engaged in speculative reasoning about hypothetical claims under sections 19 and 20. The court considered it unwise for the tribunal to treat those speculative points as forming part of its reasoning. Given the dispositive conclusion on unfavourable treatment, the court did not need to determine justification and substituted an order dismissing the claims rather than remitting the matter.

Wider context:

• The court noted that accepting the claimant's argument would have wide consequences for pension and insurance arrangements that provide differentiated benefits for different kinds of disability or particular medical events.

The appellant's appeal is dismissed and the respondents' cross-appeal is allowed. The Court of Appeal held that a disabled person who receives advantageous ill-health retirement benefits does not suffer "unfavourable" treatment under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 merely because the enhancement is smaller than that payable to another disabled person with a different medical history. The tribunal had erred in its analysis and in relying on speculative alternative claims; remitting the case served no purpose and the claims are dismissed.

Employment Tribunal (Cardiff) — liability judgment 29 July 2014 finding discrimination under s 15 and 61; Employment Appeal Tribunal (Langstaff J) UKEAT/0415/14/DM, judgment 21 July 2015, allowed the respondents' appeal on unfavourable treatment and justification and dismissed the claimant's cross-appeal; Court of Appeal [2017] EWCA Civ 1008, judgment 14 July 2017, dismissed the appellant's appeal and allowed the respondents' cross-appeal, substituting an order dismissing the claims.