Weightmans Successfully Defends Metropolitan Police In A Recent Case Involving Debt Claims

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Law Firm: Weightmans
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Author: Lewis Hough
• Published date: 24 January 2023

Weightmans, acting on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service, have successfully defended an appeal brought by 397 Royalty and Specialist Protection ('RaSP') Officers following an appeal hearing that concluded on 13 December 2022.

Executive summary

The Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed the appeal brought by 397 RaSP Officers who were seeking to claim a debt of circa £24 million. The officers failed in their attempt to overturn the judgment of Mr Justice Kerr following the High Court trial that concluded on 23 July 2021 (citation [2021] EWHC 2672 (QB)).

Background

A total of 397 officers from the RaSP Command brought claims for unpaid overtime and allowances totalling around £24 million.

As the acronym RaSP suggests, the special duties of the officers involve protecting persons of rank and importance and their families. The officers have specialist training including in the use of firearms and responsibilities that are unique in policing, and frequently travel following the 'Principals' whom they protect. The claims they brought were split into two sets of proceedings:

• The officers in the 'Prior' proceedings were mainly 'Static Protection Officers'. They claimed a debt for unpaid allowances on numerous occasions dating back to July 2012 They claimed the 'Away from Home' allowance (£50 per night), the linked 'Hardship' allowance (£30 per night if away from home and having to share a room or a bathroom) and the 'on-call' allowance (£15 per night paid if designated to be on call overnight). Collectively, these allowances are known as the "Winsor allowances" having their origins in the reports by Sir Thomas Winsor published in 2011 and 2012.
• The officers in the 'Fielding' proceedings were all 'Close Protection Officers'. They claimed additional overtime payments for numerous occasions when working away from home overnight. They argued that despite being recorded as being off duty, their additional responsibilities, including when required to retain firearms overnight, meant that they were in fact on duty (and therefore entitled to overtime). In the event that their claims for overtime were to fail, they also claimed the Winsor allowances in the alternative.

The defence to the claims accepted that the officers were frequently on-call overnight (and as such were entitled to the on-call allowance) but otherwise defended the claims on the grounds that the officers:

• were not on duty at the relevant times (and not therefore entitled to overtime)...