173 claimants have been told they can’t contest a decision made in relation to States’ employees pensions.

The application was made by ‘Russell Johnson and 172 others’ eight weeks after an Industrial Tribunals panel had already decided that the Guernsey Police Association and 50 others had no case against the States of Guernsey for changing the terms of their pensions.

A recent legal hearing centred on a new claim, made by Mr Johnson and the 172 other people – who were all previously represented in the prior hearing – calling for a judicial review of two decisions made by the Industrial Disputes Tribunal in July last year.

The 173 claimants were contesting the “first and principal decision” made by the tribunal panel regarding “the substantive Report and Award of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal” last July, and the decisions made on “…’Certain Preliminary Issues’ made by the legally qualified Chairman of that IDT, sitting alone, also of that date”.

Essentially the claim arises from the changes made to the States Pension Scheme Rules for Public Servants in 2016.

The changes saw rules around States’ employees pensions amended – and the police union and 50 other bodies contested that but lost last year.

The 173 claimants in the latest hearing were all employed by the States when their pensions were changed ten years ago. They were described up in the Industrial Disputes Tribunal as members of Guernsey Police Association and 50 others. The latter included civil servants.

Together, they have repeatedly claimed that the States was not legally entitled to apply the new 2016 Rules to their pensions as they had not individually consented to this change.

Over the last decade, they have been trying to have their pension entitlement returned to what they would have received under the prior rules, agreed in 1972.

In considering their claim, Her Hon Hazel Marshall KC, Lieutenant Bailiff sitting alone, heard evidence from three different advocates, representing the claimants, the tribunal panel, and the States.

She decided to dismiss the claimant’s application in relation to the role of the Industrial Disputes Officer in the claim against the States as employer, and refused permission for judicial review proceedings to be pursued.

She also confirmed that she would be prepared to strike the claim out of court, because there was “no viable cause of action”.