- Pension equality for same-sex survivors (Walker v Innospec Limited and others)
- Original news
- What are the practical implications of this decision?
- What is the background to the Supreme Court decision?
- What is the legislation applying to this case?
- What were the previous decisions of the lower courts in this case?
- What were the main arguments put forward in the Supreme Court? What did it decide, and why?
- Retroactivity of legislation and temporal limitation
- Whether the differential treatment provided for by para 18 of Schedule 9 is compatible with the Framework Directive?
- Whether effect must be given to para 18, if it is not compatible with the Framework Directive, or should it be disapplied?
- Whether para 18 is incompatible with article 14 of the First Protocol of the ECHR and a declaration under Human Rights Act 1998 should be made?
Pensions analysis: On 12 July 2017 the Supreme Court handed down the ground breaking decision in the appeal by John Walker against the refusal of his former employer, Innospec Limited, to provide a full survivor’s pension to his same-sex spouse which took into account his pre 5 December 2005 pensionable service. The Supreme Court unanimously allowed Mr Walker’s appeal while declaring that the exemption under para 18 of Schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) (permitting differential treatment) is incompatible with EU law and must be disapplied.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial