Gurung & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Defence

Gurung & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Defence

The dual system for transferring Gurkha pension rights, with a year-for-year transfer for service after 1 July 1997 and actuarial value for service before, is rational and justified. The chosen date reflects a material change in the Brigade's home base and retirement expectations. The distinction does not amount to unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR, as any indirect age-related impact is justified and proportionate. The claim is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Sambahadur Gurung; Claimant: Kamal Purja; Claimant: Kumar Shrestha; Defendant: Secretary of State for Defence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Pensions, Discrimination, Armed Forces Terms and Conditions, Judicial Review, Retrospective Legislation
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Employment Law Pensions Discrimination Armed Forces Terms and Conditions Judicial Review +1 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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sambahadur Gurung

Claimant

Kamal Purja

Claimant

Kumar Shrestha

Claimant

Secretary of State for Defence

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer value of Gurkha pension years of service before 1 July 1997 under the Armed Forces (Gurkha Pension) Order 2007 is irrational and/or unlawfully discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR.

Ratio Decidendi

The dual system for transferring Gurkha pension rights, with a year-for-year transfer for service after 1 July 1997 and actuarial value for service before, is rational and justified. The chosen date reflects a material change in the Brigade's home base and retirement expectations. The distinction does not amount to unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR, as any indirect age-related impact is justified and proportionate. The claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed