ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND & Anor Re A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE EAT DATED 24 APRIL 2015 [2015] ScotCS CSIH_92 (15 December 2015)

ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND & Anor Re A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE EAT DATED 24 APRIL 2015 [2015] ScotCS CSIH_92 (15 December 2015)

Mr Barton failed to establish Mr Howey as a valid comparator under the PTWR, as Mr Howey was not a full-time worker but a part-time worker, and comparability requires contemporaneous employment. The EAT erred in applying the Marleasing principle to read down section 3(3) of the 1970 Act, as such interpretation would distort the legislative scheme. The claim under the PTWR was bound to fail due to lack of a valid comparator and failure to establish less favourable treatment solely on the ground of part-time status.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSIH_92
Parties
Appellant and Respondent: Advocate General for Scotland; Respondent and Claimant: John Barton
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal upheld, claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Part Time Worker Discrimination, Pension Entitlement, Comparators Under PTWR, Interpretation of Domestic Law in Light of EU Directives
Employment Law Equality Law Public Law Part Time Worker Discrimination Pension Entitlement Comparators Under PTWR Interpretation of Domestic Law in Light of EU Directives

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Advocate General for Scotland

Appellant and Respondent

John Barton

Respondent and Claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Barton was entitled to a pension under section 3(3) of the Taxes Management Act 1970
  2. 2 Whether Mr Howey was a valid comparator under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal erred in applying the Marleasing principle to read down section 3(3)

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Barton failed to establish Mr Howey as a valid comparator under the PTWR, as Mr Howey was not a full-time worker but a part-time worker, and comparability requires contemporaneous employment. The EAT erred in applying the Marleasing principle to read down section 3(3) of the 1970 Act, as such interpretation would distort the legislative scheme. The claim under the PTWR was bound to fail due to lack of a valid comparator and failure to establish less favourable treatment solely on the ground of part-time status.

Court Disposition

appeal upheld, claim dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • Mr Barton's claim is dismissed.