Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

In the case of Williams v The Trustees of Swansea University Pension & Assurance Scheme and another [2018] UKSC 65, the Supreme Court held that Mr Williams had not been treated unfavourably when he received a reduced pension which was based on the part time hours he had been working at the end of his employment contact (because of his illness), rather than the full time hours he had previously worked when in better health.

The facts in Williams v The Trustees of Swansea University Pension & Assurance Scheme and another

Mr Williams (the “Claimant’) was employed by the University of Swansea (the “University”) from June 2000 to June 2013 when he retired for ill-health reasons. The Claimant suffered from Tourette’s syndrome and other conditions which satisfied the definition of disability.  He was a member of the University’s pension scheme (the “Scheme”) throughout his employment and had 13 years pensionable service at the date of termination of his employment.

For the first ten years of his employment he worked full time.  In May 2013 he applied for ill-health retirement under the Scheme and he retired in June 2013, at which time his working hours were half of his full-time hours because of his disabilities.

The Scheme provided for an enhancement element to the lump sum and annuity that he was to receive.  The enhancement meant he was treated as though he had accrued further pensionable service for the period from his actual retirement date to his normal pension date.  The enhancement was calculated by reference to his final salary. The Claimant argued that that the fact that it was calculated on his part time salary constituted ‘unfavourable treatment’ because of ‘something arising in consequence of his disabilities’, that being his inability to work full time.

The Law

Under section 15(1) of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”), “discrimination arising from disability” occurs where:

  • A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B’s disability, and
  • A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

“Unfavourable treatment” is not defined by the Equality Act 2010.

The decision of the Employment Tribunal

The employment tribunal (the “ET”) agreed with the Claimant, namely that he had been treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of his disability and whilst the University and the trustees of the university’s pension and assurance scheme (the “Trustees”) could show a legitimate aim they had not used a proportionate means to try and achieve it. 

The University and the Trustees appealed.

The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal

The Employment Appeal tribunal (the “EAT”) disagreed with the ET.

Langstaff J held that ‘treatment which is advantageous cannot be said to be “unfavourable” merely because it is thought it could have been more advantageous or, put the other way around, because it is insufficiently advantageous”.

The EAT made an order for remission to the ET. Both parties appealed.

The decision of the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the EAT.  Bean LJ noted that “the critical question can be put in this way: whether treatment which confers advantages on a disabled person, but would have conferred greater advantages had his disability arisen more suddenly, amounts to “unfavourable treatment” within section 15”. He concluded that it does not.

Mr Williams had been treated advantageously in comparison to non-disabled colleagues and there is no authority for the proposition that a disability discrimination claim can succeed simply because an individual thinks he should have been treated better. There is also no authority for the proposition that a disabled person who is treated advantageously because of their disability, but not as advantageously as a person with a different disability, has a valid claim that they have been treated “unfavourably”.

The Claimant appealed to the Supreme Court.

The decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the Claimant’s appeal.  They held that as he was only entitled to the pension award by reason of his disabilities the award was not in any sense “unfavourable”.

When looking at whether or not treatment is unfavourable, the Supreme Court cautioned against ‘an artificial separation’ between the method of calculation of an award and the award to which the calculation gives rise. In this case the treatment was the award of a pension. As the Supreme Court said, there was nothing intrinsically “unfavourable” or disadvantageous about the award of the pension. In fact, if Mr. Williams had been able to work full-time, that is if he had not been disabled, he would not have had an entitlement to a pension at all until age 67.

Our solicitors’ views on the case of Williams v The Trustees of Swansea University Pension & Assurance Scheme and another

Sacha Barrett, a Senior Associate in the employment department at Redmans, made the following comment on the case: “The Supreme Court’s decision provides reassurance for employers whose pension schemes or insurance contracts offer certain benefits in cases of disability, by making it less likely that such benefits will be regarded as giving rise to unfavourable treatment, which would then need to be justified”.

The decision of the Supreme Court [2018] UKSC 65 can be found here.

About

Redmans Employment Team deal with employment matters for both employers and employees, including drafting employment contracts and policies, advising employers and employees on compromise agreements, handling day-to-day HR issues, advising on restructures, and handling Employment Tribunal cases for both employers and employees Call 020 3397 3603 to speak to one of the members of our employment team or email us on enquiries@redmans.co.uk. Redmans have offices in Richmond, Chiswick, Hammersmith, Fulham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Ealing, Kings Cross and Marylebone (meetings strictly by appointment only).

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.76 Average

117 Reviews

Anonymous

I am very lucky that I worked with Mr. Chris Hadrill and he managed my case very progressively with an analytical approach and trustfully. Of course with a very positive result. I strongly recommend Mr. Hadrill to any one seeking for a successful result from a highly qualified solicitor.

Posted 4 days ago

Kulbir S

Amazing, quick friendly service from Chris from the start and Caroline. They made me feel at ease during a difficult time, they understood and advised accordingly and I am really happy with the outcome of my case. Will always advise anyone who needs legal advice to contact Redmans, I’m so glad that I did and can confidently say I don’t think any other firm could have handled my case any better. Well done guys, wish you all the best and please keep doing what your doing, simply the best!

Posted 5 days ago

Mark A

Excellent service - rapid and “to the point” advice given to ensure meeting the target time frame

Posted 5 days ago

Anonymous

Chris Hadrill kept me sane during the negotiations with my employer. He was courteous professional and he cared about doing the best he could for me. I will use Redmans again if ever I need an employment solicitor. Excellent service.

Posted 5 days ago

Muhammad Z

Awesome services. Professionals at their best .

Posted 5 days ago

Anonymous

Thanks for the advice and for negotiating a good outcome. Good to have the support at a very stressful time

Posted 5 days ago

Chloe F

My solicitor at Redmans was very helpful and efficient. Really pleased with the smooth service.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Anonymous

Chris was absolutely excellent. Clear and concise, offering sound advice.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Tim O

Experienced and competent advisors

Posted 3 weeks ago

Rachel A

Quick and expert assistance. I would highly recommend Chris for any of your legal needs.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Joe S

I was very happy with the service provided by Chris and the team at Redmans Solicitors. I felt very comfortable discussing all matters with Chris and am very grateful for all the help and guidance I was given throughout the whole process. I would definitely recommend Redmans Solicitors to friends and family!

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

I had a very good experience working with Chris Hadrill during a difficult and emotional time. This held true from the moment I spoke to him on the phone, to the end of the process. Overall, he was attentive, professional and highly supportive. He provided sound advice and clarity. It was the reviews that led me to Redmans! I was very happy to know they were all true. I highly recommend working with Redmans Solicitors. Thank-you to the entire team!

Posted 4 weeks ago

Anonymous

Good service

Posted 4 weeks ago

Anonymous

Excellent professional service. Highly recommend.

Posted 4 weeks ago

Rob O

Very prompt response and I could not fault the service. My solicitor listened carefully to the details of my case and I felt very confident in the advice I was offered. All emails and work done on my behalf with my former employer was of the highest standard and Redmans helped take a lot of the stress out of the situation for me.

Posted 1 month ago

Mike H

Very professional, friendly, proactive. I would highly recommend Redmans.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Fantastic and quick service!

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

I was very satisfied with Redmans' service. Clear, sensible advice and the bill was in line with their estimate. I would recommend them.

Posted 1 month ago

Eugene A

Excellent communication and guidance provided on the redundancy settlement process. Process was concluded quickly, very satisfied with service.

Posted 1 month ago

Harold d

Great personlised service and quick communication. Solicitor helps greatly in understanding the options and advising best course of action.

Posted 1 month ago

Trish B

Professional and efficient. A pleasure to deal with.

Posted 1 month ago