Clarke v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary [2024] EWCA Civ 676

In a recent important ruling, the Court of Appeal has provided clarity on the nature of a police disablement gratuity in the case of Clarke v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary. The case revolved around the question of whether the employment tribunal had jurisdiction under the Equality Act 2010 to determine whether the payment (or non-payment) of a disablement gratuity to a former police officer gave rise to unlawful discrimination.  

The claimants, former police officers, had suffered work-related injuries leading to total and permanent disablement. However, as the disablements had occurred more than 12 months after they had suffered their injuries, they were not entitled to a disablement gratuity under regulation 12 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006.

However, the crux of the matter was whether the gratuity arrangements constituted an “occupational pension scheme” within the meaning of section 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993. The Court held that the gratuity was not an occupational pension scheme for the purposes of this definition. In particular, as the relevant part of the statutory definition required the benefit to be provided “on retirement” or “on termination of service”, and the payment of the gratuity was not triggered by either retirement or termination of service, the arrangement was not an “occupational pension scheme”.

The immediate implication of the ruling is that it clarifies that the disablement gratuity does not fall within the scope of an “occupational pension scheme”, thereby potentially limiting the avenues for redress available to officers who believe they have been discriminated against in the provision of such benefits.

While this decision provides much-needed clarity on the issue, it also raises further questions about the nature of which other gratuity or compensation arrangements might be classified as “occupational pension schemes”. For example, the gratuity scheme might have been considered an occupational pension scheme where the gratuity was triggered on termination of service - even though this type of arrangement would not be considered a classic occupational pension scheme. Where such an arrangement is classified as an “occupational pension scheme” - there would be an additional compliance burden of operating such a scheme.

In conclusion, the ruling in Clarke v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary provides valuable guidance and analysis on the interpretation of the term “occupational pension scheme” and its application to wider concepts of compensation payments. It does also highlight that other alternative arrangements - which often exist in the public sector - might fall within the definition of “occupational pension scheme” where they were previously considered not to be such arrangements.

Co-authored by Callum Duckmanton