A disablement gratuity is payable if a police officer is injured in the execution of his or her duty, ceases or has ceased to be a member of a police force, and, within 12 months of receiving the injury, becomes totally and permanently disabled as a result of the injury. The appellants were former police officers who had been injured in the execution of their duty that led to complete disablement but which had not occurred within the required 12 months. In the ET, they each argued the provision was continued discrimination for Equality Act purposes. The EAT had allowed this appeal to the Court of Appeal on two grounds: 1) the proper interpretation of the phrase "occupational pension scheme" in section 1 of the 1993 Act as a matter of domestic law and 2) the meaning of "pay" as a matter of European Union law. A third ground was allowed - though very late - as it raised an issue of law around the interpretation of s108 of the Equality Act.

At [39] Lewis LJ explains ground 2 only needed to be considered if 1 & 3 fail. After finding, on ground 1, the regulation 12 does not fall within the definition of an occupational pension scheme, he goes on to consider ground 3 and finds the ET does have jurisdiction to consider whether the conduct was discriminatory and allows the appeal, broadly because "the alleged discrimination arises out of and is closely connected to a relationship which used to exist between the appellants and their respective chief constables" [72] though as Underhill LJ points out in a short supporting comments: * "At the risk of spelling out the obvious, our decision means only that the employment tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claims, not that they will necessarily succeed."*