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

175 Reviews

Anonymous

efficient, responsive and effective

Posted 7 hours ago

Andrew B

Very good service

Posted 7 hours ago

Anonymous

Excellent service, compassionate and a good outcome

Posted 1 day ago

Anonymous

I had an employment issue which required legal advice. Chris was very supportive and knowledgeable, resulting in an optimum resolution in my favour. Would definitely recommend.

Posted 1 week ago

David M

Very professional and first-rate advice. I would use again. With thanks,

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Got the job done swiftly without going too much in to detail.

Posted 1 week ago

Derek W

Redmans dealt with my case very efficiently and I was happy with the outcome.

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Timely professional advice!

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Very good service

Posted 2 weeks ago

Anonymous

I was in contact with Chris and then worked with Caroline on an employment matter. I was very pleased with the service and professionalism throughout, and came away with satisfied with the outcome. Would happily recommend.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Nikki

Received advice re employment law. Chris was very helpful and advised accordingly. Would happily recommend them and if ever I need help again, will not think twice before using them.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Samantha K

Absolutely brilliant thank you. Caroline Lewis is a legend

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

The legal advice was clear and helpful.

Posted 2 months ago

Davinder P

Good Service

Posted 2 months ago

Adrian V

I was using Redmans services for a Settlement Agreement. Very quick and professional service. The outcome was favourable and I was very pleased with the amendments and results. Pretty glad to recommend them for any type of legal advice.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Very responsive, efficient, clear and supportive. Thank you! Highly recommend.

Posted 2 months ago

Tiago S

Chris was always prompt to help me with legal matters that are beyond my comprehension and very helpful leasing with my former employer. I would recommend Redmans Solicitors to everyone who needs help.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Fast and professional advice tailored to what was needed. Thanks for your help Chris Hadrill and team.

Posted 2 months ago

Peter S

Really pleased with the outcome and the advice I had from Chris and Sacha.

Posted 2 months ago

Harika A

Redmans solicitor's helped me with my settlement agreement, Chris has been very helpful throughout the process.He was very prompt in his responses and made my settlement look simple.Special thanks to Caroline for her efficient communication, thorough explaination of contract terminology and negotiations.I highly reccommend Redmans solicitors for anyone seeking employment related legal help.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Good and quick service

Posted 2 months ago