Landmark case could give thousands of reservists army pensions

Thousands of reservists could be eligible for army pensions for the first time after a retired major won a landmark case against the Ministry of Defence.
A tribunal found that the MoD had no justification to exclude all reservists from a pension scheme before 2015 in a new ruling that was described as “life-changing” for many soldiers.
The Territorial Army (TA) pensions were called into question at the employment tribunal after Major Charles Milroy brought a “David versus Goliath” case against the MoD. 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 to claim a pension.
Milroy, who is Scottish, took the MoD to tribunal claiming that he should have been let onto a military pension scheme for his service from 1982-2015. The tribunal in Glasgow heard 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 that the admin costs outweighed the justification of giving pensions to reservists because they did not typically serve long enough or work enough days of the year. However, Milroy argued that he should have qualified due to 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 Milroy, would have qualified.
Chartered civil engineer Milroy, who said he was the “test case”, is now set to pocket from a pension of about £7,300 per annum after his tribunal triumph. Sources described the ruling as “landmark” and said that it could have a knock-on effect, with thousands of reservists potentially entitled to pensions.
Judge Eccles said: “To deny all reservists access to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 1975 in circumstances where a relatively small number of reservists would qualify for a pension was disproportionate.”
The TA was formed in 1907 to provide a national reserve for service at home and overseas, before its 2015 name change to Army Reserves. Milroy joined in May 1982 and was commissioned as an officer the following year.
He was promoted to major in 1990, a rank which he held until his discharge from service in November 2019, and included a stint as staff officer in Iraq from February 2007 to July 2008.
The panel heard before his retirement from Scottish Water in 2010, Milroy served an average of 46 days each year. However, after this, his service “increased significantly” as he went up to 150 days each year.
The judge found that the MoD should have recognised that Milroy worked significantly more than usual for a reservist. The judge concluded: “The tribunal was not persuaded that exclusion of reservists from the AFPS 75 scheme had been objectively justified.
“Including reservists in the scheme would inevitably increase the administrative burden and cost to the MoD. [The MoD] cannot be criticised for seeking to avoid unnecessary costs and administrative burdens on the public purse. It is a legitimate aim.
“The tribunal was not persuaded however that the administrative burden and costs of allowing reservists to join the AFPS 75 scheme was sufficiently high to justify their exclusion.”
Posting on social media before his case, Milroy wrote: “This case is a bit like David versus Goliath with an individual taking on such a large organisation. I am 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.”
Slade de Lacey, solicitor at Beers LLP for Milroy, said: “We were pleased with the unanimous findings of the panel whose 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.”