The claimants in the ET had been chosen as representative of judges at various levels who had brought similar claims. They were not lead claimants but the outcome in this case could help determine the wider cohort of claims. Broadly, each of the claimants from occasionally sat in a remunerated judicial capacity at a higher level than their salaries (referred to as “sitting up”) They claimed that when sitting up, they are part-time workers and they should not be treated less favourably than comparable full-time judges. The EJ had broadly accepted these claims.

In this judgment, Mrs Justice Heather Williams provides an exhaustive review of underlying law around part time workers, in particular previous cases relating to judiciary such as O’Brien v MoJ, and the various grounds of appeal. She concludes, in summary, that the ET had focused on the alleged part-time work rather than considering the respondents’ case that sitting up was part of their full-time salaried office, an approach which “drew an unwarranted distinction between the claimants’ “core” duties and their other duties”. Allowing that ground it followed other conclusions on comparability, causation and justification could not stand either so she allowed the appeal and remitted it for re-determination of the disputed issues.