Prospect CMD Greater London Branches

Supporting & Protecting Members at work

Login/out

Upcoming Events

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

Benefits of being Registered

As across this whole website, some articles are only available to registered users, if you are member of the union register if not apply to join and then register - you know it makes sense.

*** News Flash ****

This site is being updated. However because of the immense amount of material on the site it is taking me some time. When the new site is populated this site will be closed and the updated site will be launched. In the meantime new information is only being added to the new site . You can see how the updated site is coming along here.

*****************

Legal Challenge 2011-2

RPI-CPI Legal Challenge to end

User Rating:  / 0

RPI-CPI Legal Challenge to end

Both groups of unions challenging through the Courts the Government decision to switch from RPI to CPI for the uprating of public sector pensions have reluctantly concluded that we should not continue to pursue our legal challenge.

Prospect, FDA, GMB, the National Union of Teachers and the Civil Service Pensioners Alliance have been pursuing application for Judicial Review of the decision and we had unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal against the original High Court decision (by a majority) which did not find in our favour. Although it was open to us to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court it is clear from advice that we do not have a reasonable prospect of success and this is the basis of the decision. Another group of unions including Unison, PCS and Unite have come to the same conclusion based on their separate legal advice.

Prospect will continue to press for revisions in the way in which CPI is calculated, in particular for the inclusion of housing costs which are not currently part of the calculation. We are working with other bodies, including the Royal Statistical Society to this end.

Although it is clearly disappointing that the legal challenge was not successful, we were able to air in Court a number of significant concerns about the way in which Ministers took the decision about the suitability of CPI as a measure of price increases and this will be helpful in our continuing campaign.

Yours sincerely

PAUL NOON

General Secretary

Judicial Review Appeal - full Judgment

User Rating:  / 0

Thanks to our colleagues at NFOP here is a PDF of the full Judgment Approved by the court for handing down (subject to editorial corrections)

From the front page:

Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWCA Civ 332

Case Nos: 2011/3128 & 2012/0095

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION, ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Lord Justice Elias, Mr Justice McCombe and Mr Justice Sales

Case Nos C0/3570/2011 and C0/4082/2011

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 20/03/2012

Before:

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS

THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

and

LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN

Between:

The Queen on the application of Appellants

(1) FDA

(2) PROSPECT

(3) CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS' ALLIANCE

(4) JAMES DUNLOP

(S)GMB

(6) NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS

(7) VALERIE PIPER

(8) FIRE BRIGADES UNION

(9) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

SCHOOLMASTERS UNION OF WOMEN TEACHERS

(10) PUBLIC AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES UNION

(11) PRISON OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

-and-

(1) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND Respondents

PENSIONS

(2) HER MAJESTY'S TREASURY

The Hon Michael Bel off QC and Mr Martin Westgate QC (instructed by Messrs Russell,

Jones and Walker) for the first to sixth appellants

Mr Nigel Giffin QC and Mr Christopher Knight (instructed by Messrs Thompsons) for the

seventh to eleventh appellants

Mr Nigel Giffin QC and Mr Christopher Knight (instructed by Messrs Thompsons) for the

seventh to eleventh appellants

Mr James Eadie QC, Mr Clive Sheldon QC and Ms Amy Rogers (instructed by The

Treasury Solicitor) for the respondents

Hearing dates: 20 and 21 February 2012

Judicial Review Apeal -- outcome

User Rating:  / 0

CSPA-Logo

NEWSLETTER

Number 85                                                                                                               20 March 2012

Dear Colleague

RPI/CPI SWITCH: APPEAL AGAINST THE OUTCOME OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW

Earlier today, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgement on our appeal against the outcome of the judicial review.  I am sorry to have to tell you that the three judges unanimously dismissed our appeal.

Our lawyers’ summary of the Court’s decision is shown below.

Judicial Review Appeal - Day 2 Report AC

User Rating:  / 0

An appeal aginst the outcome of the Judicial Review held in November last year was held on 20/21 February 2011 here is Tony's Day one report. Elswhere for registered users are the complete skeleton arguments for the Plaintifs.

COURT OF APPEAL

C1/2012/0095 The Queen on the application of The Staff side of the Police Negotiating Board and Others -v- The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and others. Appeal of Claimants 6th-11th from the order of Lord Justice Elias, dated 2nd December 2011, filed 12th January 2012.

C1/2011/3128 The Queen on the application of Piper & Ors -v- The Secretary of State for Work & Pensions & Ors. Appeal of Claimants from the order of Lord Justice Elias, dated 2nd December 2011, filed 2nd December 2011.

Day 2 - Tuesday 21 February 2012

Judicial Review Appeal - Day 1 Report AC

User Rating:  / 0

An appeal aginst the outcome of the Judicial Review held in November last year was held on 20/21 February 2011 here is Tony's Day one report. Elswhere for registered users are the complete skeleton arguments for the Plaintifs.

COURT OF APPEAL

C1/2012/0095 The Queen on the application of The Staff side of the Police Negotiating Board and Others -v- The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and others. Appeal of Claimants 6th-11th from the order of Lord Justice Elias, dated 2nd December 2011, filed 12th January 2012.

C1/2011/3128 The Queen on the application of Piper & Ors -v- The Secretary of State for Work & Pensions & Ors. Appeal of Claimants from the order of Lord Justice Elias, dated 2nd December 2011, filed 2nd December 2011.

Day 1 - Monday 20 February 2012

Judicial Review Appeal Skeleton Arguments - Introduction

User Rating:  / 0

COURT OF APPEAL

C1/2012/0095 The Queen on the application of The Staff side of the Police Negotiating Board and Others -v- The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and others. Appeal of Claimants 6th-11th from the order of Lord Justice Elias, dated 2nd December 2011, filed 12th January 2012.

C1/2011/3128 The Queen on the application of Piper & Ors -v- The Secretary of State for Work & Pensions & Ors. Appeal of Claimants from the order of Lord Justice Elias, dated 2nd December 2011, filed 2nd December 2011.

We have been able to get copies of some of the skeleton arguments that the barristers for both sides prepare and present to the judges prior to the hearing. At the hearing the barristers develop their oral arguments from those skeletons. 

To gain access to the skeleton arguments which the barristers used at the judicial review you need to be registered -- The Judicial Review Appeal Skeleton Arguments.

APPEAL LODGED - Judicial Review

User Rating:  / 0

An appeal against the first two points of the High Court judgement was lodged on the 12 January.  Prospect is joined with the CSPA, FDA, GMB, and NUT.  The NFOP will be making a financial contribution towards costs.

The basis of the legal argument will be that the Secretary of State was not entitled to use the CPI index for uprating because it does not protect the purchasing power of pensions and that the Secretary of State was not entitled to have regard to the financial savings to be made from changing from RPI to CPI.

The other group of unions which sought judicial review at the same time has decided to appeal only on the second point.  There will be liaison between the two groups.  It is expected that the appeal will be heard in the near future.

Please see the Prospect web-site for more details -

 

http://www.prospect.org.uk/news/id/2012/00058

Judicial Review - The judgement in full

User Rating:  / 0

Judicial Review - The 2 December 2011 judgement in full and some personal comments

TontCox-IMG 0065-125x200The 40 page full Judicial Review judgement is available here as a PDF (thanks to NFOP)

There were three judges and our case was lost 3:0 on 3 of the 4 arguments.  On one argument ('irrelevant considerations and improper purpose') Justice McCombe sided with us and consequently we lost 2:1 on that point.

With regard to our main argument that the use of CPI does not conform to the statutory requirement, paragraph 50 of the judgement is of particular interest.  In this paragraph the justices assert, "that like is being compared with like", but a few lines later that, "the rate of change in price of each item is not weighted equally".  So like is clearly not being compared with like and the justices appear to have contradicted themselves!

On our second argument - 'irrelevant considerations and improper purpose' Justice McCombe dissented from the other two Justices and agreed with our argument.  In doing so he made a useful observation, in para 131, that went beyond the 'putting the economic cart before the statutory horse', argument which he supported.  In this paragraph he referred to and dismissed the relevance of Dr Richardson's six reasons in favour of the switch to CPI, on the basis that 5 of them clearly addressed broader economic questions not relevant to the statutory provisions under which an index can properly be selected - the, 'putting the economic cart before the statutory horse' argument.  However, he pointed out that the sixth reason referred, not to the statutory requirement to address, 'the general level of prices', but to an assertion that CPI is a better measure of the inflation experience of pensioners. (Although Justice McCombe did not make this point, this assertion is, in any case, incorrect.)