The Judicial Pension Scheme (JPS) had long-term liabilities of £5.755bn at 31 March 2020, having leapt by £0.663bn from £5.092bn over the past 12 months.

The annual report said the JPS scheme had recorded an actuarial loss of £365m in the year 2019-20, compared with a gain of £250m the year before, which it attributed to a loss of £436m due to changes in assumptions.

These included a decrease in the nominal discount rate from 2.9 per cent to 1.8 per cent, which resulted in increased liabilities.

This was partially offset by a decrease in the assumed rate of pension increases from 2.6 per cent per annum to 2.35 per cent, as well as changes in demographic assumptions using the latest population projections published by The Office for National Statistics.

The scheme has no assets, with the funding of its liabilities being met by Parliament-approved grants of supply and the application of pension contributions.

The JPS is made up from The Judicial Pensions Act 1981 Scheme, The Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 Scheme, the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015 Scheme, and the 2017 Fee-Paid Judicial Pension Scheme.

The report said the JPS had underspent against a supplementary estimate of £295m, as a past service cost of £99m has been made in relation to fee-paid judicial office holders’ litigation, down from £330m allowed for provision in estimates, while a number of other liabilities were said not to have crystallised.

It was also attributed to the past service cost relating to transitional protection litigation, such as the McCloud case, having been reduced by £21m due to a clarification of the proposed changes.

The report said that outstanding issues relating to the ruling, such as member contributions and options, should be handled in the outcome of October 2020’s pecuniary losses hearing, which may offer further clarity.

Other developments included the consultation on proposed amendments to the Fee-Paid Judicial Pension Scheme, which are designed to reflect recent Supreme and European Union Court rulings in the Miller and O’Brian cases.

Share Story: