Amicus Law has successfully defended a landmark Employment Appeal Tribunal appeal on behalf of Army reservist Major Charles Milroy, in a judgment published on 29 January 2026 with significant implications for the treatment of reservists under UK employment law.
In Advocate General for Scotland v Milroy [2026]EAT25, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (Scotland) rejected in full an appeal brought by the Advocate General for Scotland, representing the Ministry of Defence. The appeal challenged an earlier Employment Tribunal ruling in Major Milroy’s favour concerning pension entitlement and pay discrimination against part-time reservists.
The appeal was dismissed on every ground by Lord Fairley, President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, who upheld the Tribunal’s findings in full.
Major Milroy was represented by Amicus Law, led by Head of Employment Slade de Lacey.
Commenting on the judgment, Slade de Lacey said:
“Major Charles Milroy, Adam Ohringer of Cloisters Chambers, our Counsel, and I were very pleased with the original Glasgow ET decision in 2024 after five years of litigation. The decision was founded on long established correct legal principles.
“The EAT has found the original ET decision to be correct. This is the lead claim and the EAT decision will be welcomed by all the reservists seeking a pension for their reserve service. There are over 1000 stayed claims awaiting this decision.”
Background to the case
Major Milroy is a long-serving Army reservist who brought claims under the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. He argued that he had been treated less favourably than full-time regular officers, specifically in relation to:
- the exclusion of his service prior to April 2015 from pension accrual; and
- the calculation of his daily rate of pay using a divisor that did not reflect periods when full-time regulars were not working.
The Employment Tribunal upheld those claims in August 2024. The Ministry of Defence appealed, arguing, among other points, that reservists do not qualify as “workers” for the purposes of the Regulations and that any differences in treatment were lawful.
The 29 January 2026 judgment
In its judgment published on 29 January 2026, the Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected the appeal in its entirety, holding that:
- the Tribunal was entitled to conclude that Major Milroy was a “worker” for the purposes of the relevant EU Directive and domestic Regulations;
- the method used to calculate reservists’ daily pay amounted to less favourable treatment when compared with full-time regulars; and
- both the pension exclusion and the pay treatment were imposed on the ground of part-time status and were not justified on objective grounds.
The appeal was therefore refused in full.
What this means for other reservists
The judgment is expected to have significant implications for other Army reservists who may have been affected by similar pension and pay arrangements. While each case will depend on its individual facts, the ruling provides important clarification that reservists can fall within the scope of part-time worker protections and must not be treated less favourably without objective justification.
Speak to Amicus Law
If you are a current or former Army reservist and believe your pension or pay may have been affected by similar arrangements, we can help.
Our Employment team has led this case from the outset and has extensive experience advising reservists on potential claims following the Milroy judgment.
To speak confidentially to our specialist Employment team, contact us today.
