THE POLICE SUPERINTENDENTS’ ASSOCIATION (R on the application of) v HER MAJESTY’S TREASURY

THE POLICE SUPERINTENDENTS’ ASSOCIATION (R on the application of) v HER MAJESTY’S TREASURY

The consultation was unlawful as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made the closure decision before considering consultation responses, breaching the Gunning (4) requirement and the Public Sector Equality Duty. However, relief was refused under s.31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981 as it was highly likely the outcome would have been the same. No enforceable legitimate expectation arose due to the size of the class and the discriminatory nature of transitional protection post-McCloud. Any factual errors were immaterial. Parliamentary privilege would also preclude the relief sought.

Parties
Claimant: The Police Superintendents’ Association; Defendant: Her Majesty’s Treasury; Interested Party: The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed. Relief refused.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Consultation Requirements, Public Sector Equality Duty, Legitimate Expectation, Error of Fact, Parliamentary Privilege
Administrative Law Public Law Employment Law Equality Law Judicial Review Consultation Requirements Public Sector Equality Duty Legitimate Expectation +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Police Superintendents’ Association

Claimant

Her Majesty’s Treasury

Defendant

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consultation on closure of legacy public service pension schemes was unlawful under common law consultation requirements (Gunning principles)
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under s.149 Equality Act 2010
  3. 3 Whether a substantive legitimate expectation arose from representations made to police officers regarding pension scheme membership

Ratio Decidendi

The consultation was unlawful as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made the closure decision before considering consultation responses, breaching the Gunning (4) requirement and the Public Sector Equality Duty. However, relief was refused under s.31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981 as it was highly likely the outcome would have been the same. No enforceable legitimate expectation arose due to the size of the class and the discriminatory nature of transitional protection post-McCloud. Any factual errors were immaterial. Parliamentary privilege would also preclude the relief sought.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed. Relief refused.