Elizabeth Ovey
Elizabeth has a general Chancery practice with particular emphasis on pensions (developing from the trust side of her practice) and on retail financial services (developing from an early specialisation in building society law). She also does a considerable amount of professional negligence work in these areas and other areas in which a Chancery background is of assistance.
Her first substantial involvement in pensions law came when she was instructed in relation to a small miners’ pension scheme during the days of the miners’ strikes in the 1980s and she has done an increasing amount of pensions work since those days. She is a contributing editor of Halsbury’s Laws vol. 80 (Personal and Occupational Pensions) (2020). She is now on the Lexis PSL pensions section editorial board and is a contributor to Lexis PSL through a series of practice notes on various aspects of discrimination and occasional case analysis.
Her financial services work involves in particular constitutional matters relating to mutual societies, regulatory issues and drafting standard terms and conditions to comply with the developing requirements relating to unfair contract terms. She is a joint editor of Wurtzburg and Mills on Building Society Law (looseleaf edition) and a co-author of Retail Mortgages: Law, Regulation and Procedure (2013).
A particular highlight of her professional negligence practice was a trip to the House of Lords in Johnson v Gore Wood [2002] 2 AC 1.
She continues to deal with other Chancery matters.
She sits as a fee-paid judge of the Upper Tribunal.
Practice Areas
Panels
- Case Analysis Panel
- Consulting Editorial Board
- Contributing Author
- Other Publications
- Q&A Panel
Qualified Year
- 1978
Membership
- Chancery Bar Association
- Association of Pension Lawyers
- Charity Law Association
- Professional Negligence Bar Association
Education
- University of Oxford (1974-1977)
21 Contributions by Elizabeth Ovey
PRACTICE NOTES
Age discrimination in occupational and personal pension schemes: Equality Act 2010 and Age Exceptions Order framework, exceptions, objective justification, temporal limits, key cases, and default retirement age
Age discrimination—the statutory framework
Rules outlawing age discrimination entered UK statute in 2006, arising from shifts in EU law—most notably the Archived Directive 2000/78/EC (Archived Equal Treatment Framework Directive), as it had effect immediately before IP completion day (ie 11 pm on 31 December 2020). Although the Archived Equal Treatment Framework Directive, like other EU directives, has been transposed into UK domestic legislation, the directive itself does not form part of domestic law (not even as assimilated law), and stands outside it. The UK measures enacted in 2006 to give effect to the Archived Equal Treatment Framework Directive and other EU law applied to employment generally, rather than being confined to pension schemes. The current statutory architecture is set out in the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) and, in respect of pension schemes, the Equality Act (Age Exceptions for Pension Schemes) Order 2010, SI 2010/2133 (the Age Exceptions Order). With effect from 1 October 2010, the Age Exceptions Order replaced the earlier regime without introducing significant alterations. Consequently, where schemes had been amended or workplace practices adjusted on the original introduction of legislation prohibiting age discrimination, the 2010 statutory provisions did not, of themselves, necessitate any further changes...
Pensions
PRACTICE NOTES
Age discrimination in pension schemes: Equality Act 2010 exceptions for occupational and personal schemes in Great Britain
Exceptions for age discrimination under the Equality Act 2010
The general non-discrimination rule for occupational pension schemes in section 61 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) imposes a broad duty that extends to age discrimination just as fully as to any other category of discrimination. Even so, EqA 2010 authorises specific exceptions, under which certain rules, practices, actions or decisions adopted within occupational pension schemes are treated as not breaching that duty. There is also power to prescribe exceptions for personal pension schemes, provided such exceptions relate solely to contributions. The exceptions themselves are set out in the Equality Act (Age Exceptions for Pension Schemes) Order 2010, SI 2010/2133 (the Age Exceptions Order), which came into force on 1 October 2010. Since that date, a number of minor amendments have been made, chiefly to reflect the end of contracting-out of parts of the state pension and other adjustments connected to the state pension. These exceptions replace those formerly available under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1031, which were made as part of implementing in UK law the Archived Directive 2000/78/EC (Archived Equal Treatment Framework Directive), as it had effect immediately before IP completion day (11 pm on 31 December 2020)...
Pensions
PRACTICE NOTES
Armed Forces Pension Scheme 2015 (UK): statutory basis, funding and cost control, governance, membership, benefits, transfers, death benefits, and the McCloud transitional remedy
Statutory framework
At present, four principal pension schemes operate in England and Wales for members of the armed forces. These are:
Armed Forces Pension Scheme 1975 (AFPS 1975) — formerly open only to the regular forces; closed to new members from 6 April 2006 and stopped future accrual from 1 April 2022
Armed Forces Pension Scheme 2005 (AFPS 2005) — likewise for the regular forces only; also closed to future accrual from 1 April 2022
Reserve Forces Pension Scheme 2005 (RFPS 2005) — open to full time reservists; again closed to future accrual from 1 April 2022
Armed Forces Pension Scheme 2015 (AFPS 2015) — open to the regular forces and all reservists; effective from 1 April 2015
There are also several other schemes, run by the same manager, that provide pension or other occupational benefits to armed forces personnel. This Practice Note focuses on AFPS 2015. The AFPS 2015 was established under section...
Pensions
PRACTICE NOTES
Barber and occupational pension equalisation: EU equal pay, the Barber window, levelling up/down and retrospective amendments
This Practice Note includes references to case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union. For guidance on whether EU judgments are binding on UK courts, see Practice Note: Assimilated law — Assimilated case law.
The equal pay principle and pensions
In its judgment in the Barber case delivered on 17 May 1990, the Court of Justice of the European Union decided that pensions payable under a private occupational pension scheme constitute deferred remuneration. Accordingly, the right to equal pay in Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome (the predecessor to Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)) extends to the element of a person’s remuneration made up of pension benefits in the same way as to any other part of their pay. The Court in Barber also concluded that the equal pay right has direct effect in relation to occupational pension schemes, and that it falls to the national courts to protect the rights that this provision confers on individuals...
Pensions
PRACTICE NOTES
Equalising Guaranteed Minimum Pensions: legal obligations, Lloyds rulings, permitted methods (B, C2, D2), arrears and interest, transfers, forfeiture and limitation, tax treatment, and PPF/public sector approaches
What are guaranteed minimum pensions?
Guaranteed minimum pensions (GMPs) came into being on 6 April 1978, arriving at the very moment the State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) was launched. The legislation in force at the time — namely the Social Security Act 1975 and the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 — allowed an employee’s employment to be contracted out of SERPS provided particular conditions were met. In essence, those conditions required the employee to be enrolled in a pension scheme that promised to pay a pension of at least a guaranteed minimum amount. That guaranteed minimum was intended to match the pension the employee would otherwise have received under SERPS. Generally, it was expected that the benefits actually payable from the relevant scheme would exceed the GMP. The principal appeal of contracting-out was that, because the state would not be required to pay SERPS as well as the individual’s basic state pension (except where, in a specific case, the GMP proved lower than the SERPS entitlement would have been), a reduced rate of national insurance contributions became payable in respect of employees who belonged to a contracted-out scheme...
Pensions
PRACTICE NOTES
Firefighters’ Pension Scheme 2015 (England): benefits, funding, governance, cost control mechanism reforms and McCloud remedy, with Scottish and Welsh variations
Statutory framework
In England, there are three pension arrangements in place for firefighters, collectively referred to as the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme. These are:
Firefighters’ Pension Scheme 1992 (FPS 1992), which stopped accepting new members from 6 April 2006 and ended future accrual on 1 April 2022
Firefighters’ Pension Scheme 2006 (FPS 2006, or NFPS – the New Firefighters’ Pension Scheme), which likewise closed to future accrual with effect from 1 April 2022
Firefighters’ Pension Scheme 2015 (FPS 2015), which commenced on 1 April 2015
FPS 1992 also covered fire and rescue personnel in Scotland and Wales. FPS 2006 did not, and separate new schemes were put in place by the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (Scotland) Order 2007, SSI 2007/199, and the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (Wales) Order 2007, SI 2007/1072. In 2014 and 2015, distinct successor schemes were also introduced for England, Scotland and Wales, titled respectively the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme 2015, the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (Scotland) 2015 and the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (Wales) 2015. The principal regulations are: the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (England) Regulations 2014 (FPS(E)) in respect of fire...
Pensions
PRACTICE NOTES
Fixed-term workers’ occupational pensions: discrimination, comparators, pro rata principle, objective justification, enforcement and time limits under the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002
This Practice Note includes references to case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union. For guidance on whether EU judgments are binding on UK courts, see Practice Note: Assimilated law — Assimilated case law.
Legislative framework
Broadly, employees engaged on fixed-term contracts are protected against:
treatment that is less favourable than that afforded to colleagues on contracts of indefinite duration, and
abuse arising from a succession of fixed-term contracts
These statutory protections derive from the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, SI 2002/2034 (the Fixed-term Regulations). The Fixed-term Regulations took effect on 1 October 2002 to give effect, in domestic law, to the provisions of the Archived Fixed-term Work Directive 1999 (as it had effect immediately before IP completion day). Although the Fixed-term Regulations form part of domestic law, the directive itself does not. The directive was adopted to give legal force within the EU to a framework agreement concluded by representatives of employers and workers, which was annexed to the directive...
Pensions
PRACTICE NOTES
Judicial Pension Scheme 2015: UK practitioner’s guide to statutory framework, funding, governance, eligibility, contributions, benefits, death benefits, transfers, McCloud remedy, and interaction with legacy schemes and JPS 2022
Statutory framework
The Judicial Pension Scheme comprises a range of arrangements:
Judicial Pension Scheme 1981 (JPS 1981). Salaried judges appointed before 31 March 1995 typically fall within this unfunded, final salary arrangement, created under the Judicial Pensions Act 1981 (JPA 1981)
Judicial Pension Scheme 1993 (JPS 1993 or JUPRA). Salaried judges appointed between 31 March 1995 and 31 March 2015 generally participate in this unfunded, final salary arrangement, established under the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (JPRA 1993).
Note that:
there is a right to elect to move from JPS 1981 to JUPRA at any point up to six months after retirement. For further details, see: Eligibility, below
the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) conducted an options exercise in 2023 enabling certain members of the Judicial Pension Scheme 2015 (JPS 2015) to make a retrospective choice to be in JUPRA/FPJPS or in JPS 2015 for the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2022 (the remedy period). This is referred to as the McCloud remedy, owing to the age discrimination identified in the transitional provisions relating to JPS 2015 which were found to be under those transitional provisions, as applicable at that time then...
Pensions
PRACTICE NOTES
JUPRA 1993 (Archived): legacy UK judicial pension scheme covering eligibility, governance, contributions, retirement and survivor benefits, transfers, and relationships with JPS 1981, FPJPS, JPS 2015/2022 and the McCloud remedy
ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note concerns the judicial pension scheme created by the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (referred to as the Judicial Pension Scheme 1993 (JPS 1993) or JUPRA). It is no longer maintained. The Practice Note also includes references to the Judicial Pension Scheme 1981 (JPS 1981).
Statutory framework
The Judicial Pension Scheme comprises several schemes:
JPS 1981. Salaried judges appointed before 31 March 1995 generally belong to this unfunded final salary scheme, which was set up under the Judicial Pensions Act 1981 (JPA 1981)
JUPRA. Salaried judges appointed between 31 March 1995 and 31 March 2015 usually belong to this unfunded final salary scheme, which was established under the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (JPRA 1993).
Note that:
there is a right of election to move from the JPS 1981 to JUPRA at any time up to a date six months after retirement. For further information, see: Eligibility, below
the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) commenced an options exercise in October 2023 to allow certain members of the Judicial Pension Scheme 2015 (JPS 2015) to retrospectively choose whether to be a member of JUPRA/FPJPS or the JPS 2015 between 1...
Pensions
PRACTICE NOTES
Objective justification in pension discrimination: tests, social policy aims, costs-plus, government margin, and key cases for employers, trustees and managers
This Practice Note includes citations and references to case law decisions from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). For guidance on whether EU judgments bind UK courts, see Practice Note: Assimilated law — Assimilated case law.
What is objective justification?
As set out below, objective justification can operate as a potential defence to allegations of either direct or indirect discrimination, though it is available only in very limited and exceptional circumstances in claims of direct discrimination.
Under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010), there is prima facie indirect discrimination where A subjects B to the application of a provision, criterion or practice (often termed a ‘PCP’) that is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B’s. A PCP is discriminatory if:
A applies, or would apply, it to persons who do not share B’s characteristic
it places, or would place, those who share B’s characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons who do not share it, and
it places, or would place, B at that disadvantage
This is commonly and widely referred to as the ‘group disadvantage’ test...
Pensions
PRACTICE NOTES
Objective justification in UK pension schemes: key discrimination cases on legitimate aims, proportionality and the 'costs plus' test
This Practice Note reviews several leading cases on the notion of objective justification, with references to judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In broad terms, EU judgments issued on or before IP completion day continue to bind UK courts and tribunals (even if the EU courts later reach a different view) unless and until the UK courts exercise their powers to depart. As a rule, EU case law created after that date is not binding in the UK, though UK courts and tribunals may still have regard to later EU judgments where relevant. For fuller guidance on the approach to EU case law, see Practice Note: Assimilated law—Assimilated case law...
Objective justification
Objective justification is a commonly used shorthand for establishing that a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) which disadvantages an individual or group compared with others is nevertheless a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Under the Equality Act 2010, s 19(1)–(3), objective justification operates as a defence to a claim of indirect discrimination based on a relevant protected characteristic (eg age or sex)...
Pensions
PRACTICE NOTES
Part-time and fixed-term workers' pensions: key UK and EU discrimination cases, comparators, objective justification, calculation (including pre-2000 service) and limitation issues for pension lawyers
Practice Note
This Practice Note includes references to case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). For guidance on whether EU judgments are binding on UK courts, consult Practice Note: Assimilated law — Assimilated case law. Please note that, while UK measures implementing directives form part of domestic law, the directives themselves are not. For further detail, see Practice Note: Assimilated law. A significant proportion of the leading authorities on discrimination and part-time workers centred on sex discrimination, reflecting that most part-time roles were held by women. Accordingly, claims could be framed as indirect sex discrimination even in the absence of specific protection for part-time workers. These cases are considered in the Practice Note: Sex discrimination for pension lawyers. This Practice Note examines the principal decisions in which the courts have dealt with claims relating to:
comparative issues between part-time and full-time workers, regardless of the gender of the workers concerned...
Pensions
PRACTICE NOTES
Part-time workers and pension discrimination in Great Britain: Equality Act 2010, Part-time Workers Regulations 2000, access, treatment, time limits, remedies, and key EU and UK case law
This Practice Note cites decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union. For advice on the extent to which EU rulings bind the courts of the United Kingdom, consult Practice Note: Assimilated law — Assimilated case law.
The legislative framework
Two distinct legislative strands must be assessed when considering part-time workers and discrimination. The first concerns equal treatment as between men and women. Because, historically, women have been more likely than men to work part-time, employment conditions, including pension scheme terms, that treat part-time staff less favourably may amount to discrimination against women. The second concerns measures directed specifically at safeguarding part-time workers.
Equal treatment legislation
Provisions intended to guarantee equality for men and women in relation to pension schemes have a long history. The current domestic position is contained in section 67 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010), which stipulates that any pension scheme lacking a sex equality rule is to be regarded as if such a rule were included. This ensures pension scheme terms reflect sex equality requirements within domestic law in practice...
Pensions
PRACTICE NOTES
Pension equalisation after Barber: key cases on mixed retirement ages, amendment compliance, limited retrospectivity, Scottish presumptions, contractual promises and court‑approved compromises
This Practice Note contains references to case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
For guidance on whether EU judgments are binding on UK courts, see Practice Note: Assimilated law — Assimilated case law. On 17 May 1990, the European Court of Justice ruled, in Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange, that the entitlement of men and women to equal pay for equal work, or work of equal value, also embraces the element of remuneration made up of pension benefits. As a result, many schemes needed amendments to their governing documents so as to provide equal pension benefits for men and women. The exercise of implementing the Barber principle became known as equalisation. Although the precise scope of Barber was initially unclear, the outstanding issues were very largely settled by further cases, culminating in Coloroll Trustees v Russell. For further information, see Practice Note: Equalisation and Barber—the pension implications...
Pensions
PRACTICE NOTES
Police Pension Scheme 2015 (England and Wales): statutory framework, funding and cost cap reforms, governance, eligibility, contributions, CARE design, benefits (retirement, ill‑health, death), transfers, appeals, and McCloud transitional remedy
FORTHCOMING CHANGE:
The Home Office consulted on bringing the Police Pension Scheme 2015 revaluation date into line with the tax year—from 1 April to 6 April—to avoid CPI misalignment that can otherwise inflate annual allowance charges. Mirroring practice in other public sector schemes, the proposal seeks to improve fairness whilst leaving overall benefits unchanged. The consultation closed on 16 March 2026, with a response anticipated around June 2026. For more information, see LNB News 20/01/2026 39.
Statutory framework
There are currently three pension schemes in operation in England and Wales providing benefits for members of a police force. The three schemes are:
the Police Pension Scheme 1987 (PPS 1987), which closed to new members from 6 April 2006 and to future accrual from 1 April 2022
the Police Pension Scheme 2006 (PPS 2006, or NPPS (the New Police Pension Scheme)), which also closed to future accrual with effect from 1 April 2022
the Police Pension Scheme 2015 (PPS 2015), which came into effect on 1 April 2015
The PPS 1987 also applied to members of a police force in Scotland. The PPS 2006 did not, and a separate new scheme was established...
Pensions
PRACTICE NOTES
Sex discrimination in occupational pension schemes: equal treatment, post‑Brexit EU law, Barber, indirect discrimination, powers to amend and GMP equalisation
The current position and how we got here
As in other parts of discrimination law that govern pension schemes, rules on sex discrimination have been strongly shaped by European law. In this area, three separate strands of European law have informed the development of UK law:
case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU)—as regards the domestic effect of CJEU judgments, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (REUL(RR)A 2023), s 6 introduces new tests and procedures for UK courts when deciding whether to depart from earlier CJEU rulings. Previously, in weighing a departure from retained EU case law, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal (together, the Higher Courts) applied the standard of whether it appeared ‘right to do so’. REUL(RR)A 2023 amends s 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (EU(W)A 2018) so that, once the new provisions take effect, the Higher Courts must have regard, among other matters, to specified factors...
Pensions
PRACTICE NOTES
Sex discrimination in UK occupational pension schemes: key CJEU and UK case law on equal pay, part-time access, the Barber window and GMP equalisation
This Practice Note reviews the principal cases concerning sex discrimination within the context of pension schemes. It includes references to decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), previously known as the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
For guidance on whether EU judgments are binding on UK courts, see Practice Note: Assimilated law — Assimilated case law.
Bilka-Kaufhaus v Weber
The decision is notable for:
its confirmation that eligibility for an employer-provided pension scheme amounts to an element of pay for the purposes of the right to equal pay under Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome (now replaced by Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)).
Note that the equal pay right in Article 157 TFEU had direct effect in UK law and constituted retained EU law until 31 December 2023. Since 1 January 2024, it no longer has direct effect in the UK. It appears that pension scheme members and their dependants now rely on Equality Act 2010, s 67 for their equal treatment rights...
Pensions
PRACTICE NOTES
Test-Achats: unisex insurance pricing, 'new contract' guidance, and the continuing use of sex-based actuarial factors in occupational pension schemes
This Practice Note examines the implications of the EU judgment Association belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats v Conseil des Ministres (the Test-Achats case) and other pertinent law for the use of sex-based actuarial factors in insurance products and occupational pension schemes. For guidance on whether EU judgments bind UK courts, see Practice Note: Assimilated law — Assimilated case law.
Common insurance practices before the Test-Achats case
Before the Test-Achats case, insurers commonly followed several standard approaches:
statistically, women are expected to live longer than men, so insurers typically offered women lower annuity rates for the same capital sum because payments had to be made for a longer period
statistically, men are involved in more car accidents than women, so insurers often charged men (particularly young men) higher premiums for motor cover
statistically, women are more likely than men to claim on health-related insurance, so insurers frequently charged women higher premiums for those policies
These outcomes stemmed from placing men and women into distinct classes for risk assessment across products. Insurers applied these distinctions for pricing and benefit calculation purposes...
Pensions
PRACTICE NOTES
Transgender pension rights in the UK: Gender Recognition Act 2004, Equality Act 2010, ECtHR/CJEU case law, and practical issues for state and occupational schemes
This Practice Note adopts terminology derived from the relevant statutory provisions and earlier case law, which remains binary and, to a degree, clinical in character, reflecting the phrasing of the instruments and decided authorities. The extent to which attitudes and language have moved on is illustrated by the House of Commons Women and Equality Committee’s report issued in December 2015. In the pensions sphere, however, entitlement can still, in certain respects, turn on whether an individual is regarded as male or female at a given point in time. That position contrasts with issues that arise particularly in the delivery of services, where discrimination may concern non-binary or fluid gender identity. Accordingly, the Note uses terms aligned with those sources, even where discourse may differ. This Practice Note also cites rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), together with rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) relating to those rights. The ECHR is an international treaty ratified by the UK in 1951. It became enforceable in UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998, which gives domestic effect to the rights set out in the ECHR. Decisions...
Pensions
CHECKLISTS
Age Discrimination in Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes: Using the Equality Act 2010 Age Exceptions (SI 2010/2133)—Checklist for Trustees, Managers and Employers
Considerations for trustees and managers
Confirm the scheme is updated to meet the statutory ban on age discrimination, considering carve‑outs in the Age Exceptions Order, SI 2010/2133.
If not already updated, assess whether changes are needed, again having regard to those exceptions.
Where a length‑of‑service test disadvantages members with over 5 years’ service, set procedures to obtain the employer’s confirmation that it reasonably appears to serve a business need.
Note some exceptions require a rule, practice, action or decision to pursue a specified aim, or allow it only to a defined extent; keep material showing it targets that aim or is limited accordingly.
Carefully consider whether proposed alterations to governing or operating rules, practices, actions or decisions would amount to age discrimination.
Considerations for employers
For occupational and personal schemes, factor in age discrimination and the scope of exceptions when seeking any changes to rules, practices, actions or decisions.
Where a length‑of‑service criterion disadvantages a member, ensure it meets a business need with supporting material, revisit as circumstances evolve, and keep procedures to provide required information and confirmations to trustees or managers.
For personal schemes, note the same specified‑aim/limited‑extent requirements and retain material evidencing compliance.
...
Pensions
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
