Reservists could now get Army pension following 'major' win in landmark case
Britain's thousands of British Army reservists could be in line to receive a service pension for the first time after a retired major won a landmark case against the MOD.
In a new ruling that could be 'life-changing' for thousands of soldiers, a tribunal has found the MOD had no justification to exclude all reservists from a pension scheme before 2015.
The Territorial Army pensions were called into question at the employment tribunal after Major Charles Milroy brought a 'David versus Goliath' case against the MOD.
Posting on social media before his case, Maj Milroy said he was "the test case".
"If I am successful, other TA soldiers will be able to make similar claims, and for some of them this may be life-changing," he said.
Slade de Lacey, solicitor at Beers LLP for Maj Milroy, said they were "pleased with the unanimous findings of the panel".
They said the decision "finds that reservists with enough service are eligible for a pension for their part-time reserve service and all reservists will benefit from the decision on parity of pay with full-time personnel."
Maj Milroy, 66, was denied access to a military pension despite serving more than 37 years in the TA, which included a tour in Iraq.
The MOD denied TA soldiers a full service pension until 2015, when the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 2015 came in allowing both regular soldiers and reservists.
However, Maj Milroy took the MOD to the tribunal, claiming that he should have been let onto a military pension scheme for his service from 1982 to 2015.
The tribunal in Glasgow heard Maj Milroy was not allowed to enrol because the MOD claimed it was "administratively burdensome and extremely expensive" to provide pensions to all reservists.
The MOD said the admin costs outweighed the justification for giving pensions to reservists because typically they do not serve long enough or work enough days of the year.
However, Maj Milroy argued he should have qualified because of the length of his service and because he worked a lot throughout the year.
Employment Judge Frances Eccles ruled in his favour, finding that it was "disproportionate" of the MOD to deny all reservists pensions because some of them, like Maj Milroy, would have qualified.
Chartered civil engineer Maj Milroy, who said he was the 'test case', is now set to pocket from a pension of around £7,300 per annum after his tribunal triumph.
Sources have described the ruling as a "landmark" and say it could have a huge knock-on effect, with thousands of reservists potentially entitled to pensions.
Judge Eccles said that denying all reservists access to the pension "in circumstances where a relatively small number of reservists would qualify for a pension was disproportionate".
Maj Milroy joined the Territorial Army in May 1982 and was commissioned as an officer the following year, having served an average of 46 days each year until 2010 but, after this, his service increased significantly – jumping to 150 days each year.
The 1975 Armed Forces Pension Scheme [AFPS 75] and its 2005 successor were 'only' open to regulars serving on a full-time basis and who "make the services their career".
Based on their average annual service and total years' service, the 'majority of reservists' would not have qualified for a pension for the two available, it was heard.
The hearing was told: "[The majority of reservists] would have likely left the Armed Forces before qualifying for a pension.
"Unlike the majority of reservists, based on his total days and length of service, [Maj Milroy] would have qualified for a pension had he been allowed access to either scheme."
The tribunal heard the 2015 pension scheme was put in place after the MOD faced pressure to justify the exclusion of reservists following the introduction of part-time workers' rights.
Judge Eccles said: "[Maj Milroy] was excluded from the AFPS 75 because as a reservist he worked part-time.
"The AFPS 75 and successor schemes were only designed for regulars who worked full time. They were not intended for reservists.
"When he sought access to the AFPS 75 scheme it was considered unsuitable and too expensive to administer because, as a reservist, he worked part-time.
"The tribunal was persuaded that his exclusion from the AFPS 75 was because of his part-time status and not for some other reason or number of different reasons."
The judge found the MOD should have recognised that Maj Milroy worked significantly more than usual for a reservist and concluded that the "tribunal was not persuaded that exclusion of reservists from the AFPS 75 scheme had been objectively justified".
An MOD spokesperson said: "The Reserves make a significant contribution to the defence of the country, including with their specialist skills.
"We are in discussion with legal counsel the implications of the judgment and the possibility of appealing. We will not be commenting further at this time."
Join Our Newsletter
