In Brief
Ex Navy Direct Entry Artificers claimed they were entitled to reservist pension after rendering 10 years of service, arguing that they should have been automatically drafted into Fleet Reserve where 50% of the period counts toward pension qualification. The Supreme Court held that automatic drafting into Fleet Reserve does not occur upon completion of 10 years' service; a specific order of enrolment by the competent authority is necessary. The Court rejected the Promissory Estoppel argument, noting no promise was made at recruitment regarding Fleet Reserve drafting. The appellants were not entitled to count Fleet Reserve service or claim reservist pension. The Court also rejected parity claims with Apprentice Entry Artificers, whose pension benefit arose from counting training periods under a different scheme. The appeal was dismissed, though the Court directed consideration of special pension claims under Regulation 95."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.