The judge, effectively, suggested that the MoJ transitional protection figure of ten years was one drawn from other areas of the public sector, and based on negotiations aimed at fostering good industrial relations. The government was unable to provide any detail about why it had relied on it for the judiciary, the judge wondeeed if it was rolled out in the interests of fairness. For its part, the MoD is exempt from age discrimination legislation, but as the rational behind the 10 year TP was not tested, let alone advanced, the question then, surely, evolves into one of 'why have protection at all?'.
If the MoD wants to advance and then rely on the age argument in order to then rely on a legal exemption.. basically, it might have to provide the evidence. Again, the judge made the post that provision for more imminent retirement already existed, and wondered about its relevancy. If the MoD promotes the age discrimination exemption argument (and let's remember, the ruling applied too, to gender and race) at that point, the Treasury could, in all possibility, simply say 'Dear Wing Commander, you have twenty years work in front of you, you are highly attractive to a civilian employer, crack on.. go get a job'.
Therefore it may be that ageism won't come into it at all, and that transitional protection becomes a non-issue, simply because there is none applied and that the purported DC/Defined Ambition scheme is therefore rolled out in one go to new entrants and immature and mature careerists alike. I have long been a fan of tapered protection, but the ruling appears to require that even that needs to be justified. I accept that the Forces Pension Society is not a fan of it, based on its unwillingness to rely on it to help redundees sacked so close to getting EDP.
PN, BME = black/minority/ethnicity.