Milroy v MOD: the MOD gets permission to appeal on reservists' pensions
An employment tribunal found that the MOD treated a reservist less favourably by denying him access to AFPS 75 and by calculating his daily pay using a divisor of 365.25. The MOD appealed and lost. On 8 October 2026, after an oral hearing, the Court of Session gave the MOD permission to appeal, so the case now goes to a further appeal that has no date yet. If the original decision stands, it points to non mobilised reserve service before April 2015 having been pensionable. It is not settled, and no reservist should act as though it is.
Key takeaways
- In August 2024 an employment tribunal found in favour of Major Charles Milroy on both the pension access and the daily pay calculation.
- On 29 January 2026 the Employment Appeal Tribunal refused the MOD's appeal on all four grounds.
- An Employment Appeal Tribunal judge refused the MOD leave to appeal further in February 2026, so the MOD applied to the Inner House of the Court of Session.
- On 8 October 2026, after an oral hearing, the Court of Session granted the MOD permission to appeal. The appeal itself has no date, and the court's reasons have not been published.
- This is not settled law. Until the appeal is decided, the position is contested.
- If it stands, it points to non mobilised reserve service before 1 April 2015 having been pensionable under AFPS 75 or AFPS 05, subject to the two year qualifying period.
- Reserve service from 1 April 2015 onward is already pensionable under AFPS 15 and is not affected by this case.
How the case got here
| Date | What happened |
|---|---|
| June 2020 | Major Charles Milroy brings his claim against the MOD |
| April 2023 | The employment tribunal hears the case |
| 5 August 2024 | Employment tribunal in Scotland finds in favour of Major Charles Milroy |
| 17 September 2024 | MOD submits an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| December 2025 | The Employment Appeal Tribunal hears the appeal |
| 29 January 2026 | The Employment Appeal Tribunal refuses the appeal on all four grounds |
| February 2026 | An Employment Appeal Tribunal judge refuses the MOD leave to appeal further |
| 25 February 2026 | The case is debated in the House of Commons |
| Late March 2026 | MOD applies to the Inner House of the Court of Session for leave to appeal |
| 8 October 2026 | Oral hearing; the Court of Session grants the MOD permission to appeal |
| Not yet set | The appeal itself |
The Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment is reported as Advocate General for Scotland v Mr Charles Milroy [2026] EAT 25.
What happened on 8 October 2026
The hearing on 8 October decided only whether the MOD could appeal, not the appeal itself. The MOD's statement on gov.uk, added on 12 October 2026, says: "The Ministry of Defence (MOD) can confirm that it has been granted permission to appeal in the case of Advocate General for Scotland v Milroy. The appeal will now proceed through the next stage of the legal process." It adds that as the matter remains before the courts, it would not be appropriate to comment in detail.
The Forces Pension Society reported the same outcome on 9 October, adding that "the Court's reasons have not yet been published, and it is not yet known whether the MoD will proceed with an appeal." Its guidance for members is unchanged.
So the tribunal's findings stand for now, but they are under appeal, and no hearing date has been published. We will update this page when the appeal is listed or decided.
What the tribunal found
The claim was brought under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. The tribunal found three things.
- A full time regular officer of the same rank is engaged on the same type of contract, so is a valid comparator.
- Calculating the reservist's daily pay by dividing a regular's annual salary by 365.25 treated him less favourably, because it failed to reflect the periods when regulars are not working.
- He received less favourable treatment by being denied access to a pension under AFPS 75 and its successor schemes.
The MOD's historic justification was that very few reservists would earn enough to meet the scheme's entry requirements, so admitting them would cost more to administer than it was worth. The tribunal was not persuaded that the administrative burden justified the exclusion.
What it would mean if it stands
The Forces Pension Society's reading is deliberately careful, and it is worth keeping it that way. With the exception of the two year qualifying period, the decision appears to indicate that non mobilised reserve service before 1 April 2015 should have been pensionable under AFPS 75 or AFPS 05, and that using an annual divisor of 365.25 for the reserve rate of pay, rather than a smaller number reflecting non working days, was wrong.
Depending on individual circumstances, that could mean affected reservists recovering lost pension benefits and compensation for lost pay.
There is a separate point that often gets missed. Under the 2015 pension remedy, members may be able to aggregate pension benefits from different periods of service provided there is no disqualifying break of more than five years. Where MOD administrative delay causes someone to fall the wrong side of that test, it can be expensive.
Do not read this as an entitlement. The MOD's challenge is live: the Court of Session gave it permission to appeal on 8 October 2026, and the appeal has not yet been heard. Nobody should assume a payment is coming, and we are not going to publish a claims deadline, because employment tribunal time limits are strict, fact specific, and nothing in the published material sets out the position for follow on claimants. If you think you may be affected, read the Forces Pension Society's guidance and take advice.
If you are a reservist now
Nothing in this case affects reserve service from 1 April 2015 onward. Reserves and FTRS personnel have built pension under AFPS 15 since then, and our reserves pension calculator estimates that in the normal way.
What the case touches is the earlier period, non mobilised reserve service before April 2015, which was not pensionable at the time and which the calculator therefore does not model. We are not going to change the engine while the case is live, because doing so would mean publishing figures based on a legal position that is currently being challenged.
Frequently asked questions
Armed Forces Pension Calculator Team
We build the calculators and write the guides on this independent site, working from the official AFPS scheme rules and published sources such as gov.uk, Veterans UK and the Government Actuary's Department. We are not part of the MOD and we are not regulated financial advisers, so everything here is general information, not personal advice.
Sources: gov.uk · GAD factors · Veterans UK · Forces Pension Society · MoneyHelper.