[2025] UKUT 250 (AAC)

Mr Carolan, for the Secretary of State, and resisting the appeal, essentially relied upon the Respondent’s written submissions and, in particular, on the formal response to the Appellant’s Upper Tribunal appeal. The Respondent acknowledged that the decision in GE did not deal expressly with Articles 59 and 64(6), but contended that the same principle applied in the Appellant’s case, namely that (in accordance with Article 16(10)) a GIP does not become payable until a member’s service ends. In particular, the definition of “relevant salary” (see Article 24(6)(b)) illustrated that the correct calculation for a GIP could not be completed until the individual’s salary on the last day of service was known. Furthermore, as a matter of statutory construction, the Respondent argued that the phrase “subject to article 16(10)” applies to Article 64(5)(d), so the provision for backdating for six years (in Article 64(6)) can only apply to the extent that it does not pre-date the last day of service. To hold otherwise, according to the Respondent, would be contrary to Article 16(10) and unlawful. Mr Carolan accordingly submitted that the FTT had not erred in law and so the Appellant’s appeal should be dismissed.