The Claimant, a retired part-time Legal Chair of the RPTS, alleged less favourable treatment in relation to pension credit than his comparators. The ET ruled that the pension credit for claimants in the RPTS such as the Claimant should be on the basis proposed by the Respondents, and it made a declaration that the Claimant was entitled to a 50% equivalent pension in respect of an earlier period of service. The Claimant appealed on the grounds that (1) the ET erred in law in failing to have regard to the pro-rata principle as required by reg 8(9) of the Part-time Workers Regulations 2000, (2) the ET erred in failing to award compensation which is "such as the Tribunal considers just and equitable in the circumstances", and (3) the ET erred in law in declining to take into account reg 3 of and the Schedule to the Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017.

The EAT held that the ET had not erred in making its findings, and the appeals would be dismissed.