Six High Court judges are taking unprecedented legal action against the lord chancellor, alleging that she has unlawfully discriminated against them on age grounds.

One of the judges is also accusing Liz Truss of discriminating against her because of her sex while another of “Asian British ethnic origin” accuses her of race discrimination.

The claims – to come before an employment tribunal on November 14 – arise from a revised judicial pension scheme imposed on judges last year, which hugely reduced their benefits. All the claims relate to reduced benefits the judges can expect to receive under a new judicial pension scheme.

A two-week hearing has been arranged before a tribunal judge who is not affected by the pension arrangements although there could be appeals before other judges.

The judges claim that their conditions of service “reflect the established constitutional principle, dating back to (at least) the Act of Settlement 1701 that neither the legislature nor the executive should subject judges to a reduction in pay (including deferred pay such as pensions) during the term of their offices, as has occurred in the case of the claimants”.

They say this principle is “designed to protect the independence of the judiciary, a key element of the rule of law”.

The six High Court judges are Sir Nicholas Mostyn, 59, Sir Roderick Newton, 58, Sir Philip Moor, 57, Dame Lucy Theis, 55, Sir Richard Arnold, 55 and Sir Rabinder Singh, 52. Their grounds of claim say that each of the six was automatically enrolled in a judicial pension scheme on appointment. The new pension scheme, introduced in 2015, was “substantially less beneficial”.

A group of cycle delivery contractors is attempting to force one of the UK’s fastest-growing companies to grant collective pay bargaining rights in the latest challenge to the burgeoning “gig economy”.

Union officials launched the first step against Deliveroo yesterday in a case that is likely to end in a hearing before the central arbitration committee, the government body that oversees disputes over union recognition and collective bargaining.

Executives at Deliveroo – which has annual revenues of £130 million – have ten days to respond to a written request from the union for recognition. If the case ultimately goes to the arbitration committee, the tribunal could force the company to recognise a union for collective bargaining.

The case comes after a landmark employment tribunal ruling last month, which found that drivers for the online taxi company Uber should be classed as workers with employment rights.

The Deliveroo case is being led by the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain, which is representing a group of cycle delivery riders in Camden, north London. “If we win the case it means that the committee will have declared that Deliveroo guys are workers and not independent contractors,” Jason Moyer-Lee, the union’s general secretary, said.

He said that the Deliveroo challenge was similar to the Uber case in that a small number of individuals had been put forward as test cases. “This case strikes at the very basis upon which the so-called gig economy rests,” Moyer-Lee said. “The companies say these workers are all independent businesspeople who don’t need employment rights and don’t need to unionise, we say they are workers hired by big companies and need to be treated as such.”

Deliveroo – which describes itself as an online food delivery company – was launched in the UK two years ago and has since expanded across Europe and into Dubai and Hong Kong.

Lawyers pointed out that by taking the challenge to the committee, Deliveroo was following a less conventional route than the decision by Uber drivers to take their case to the employment tribunal. “A trade union can seek and obtain recognition to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a group of workers but not a group of self-employed contractors,” Lee Rogers, an employment law specialist at the law firm Weightmans, said.

Rogers predicted that it was “extremely unlikely” that Deliveroo would accede to the union’s request “because if it were to do so it would effectively be accepting that its drivers are workers who have the protection of various employment rights, including the right to national minimum wage and holiday pay, rather than self-employed contractors who do not”.

If Deliveroo rejects the union’s request, the case will go to the arbitration committee and the case could take several months to be heard. A spokesman for Deliveroo confirmed that the riders are classed as independent contractors and that in the wake of the Uber ruling the company aimed “to get them recognised in law as being workers … this means they would obtain paid holiday, minimum wage, trade union rights, and more”.

EU leaders will cut a tough deal with the UK over Brexit because both sides are motivated by politics and not economics, a lawyer trade expert told The Brief yesterday.

Miriam Gonzalez, head of the EU trade and government affairs team at the London office of Dechert, the US law firm, said that the “primary interest” in Brussels and the EU capitals would be “keeping the rest of the union together”.

Gonzalez, a former Brussels trade expert, called on the British government not to limit its legal advice on Brexit to a narrow group of City of London law firms. She said that Square Mile practices had over the years failed to build sufficient expertise in trade matters and that Whitehall needed to cast a wider net.

“Part of the problem with law firms and trade as a practice area is that there are very few people with trade-specific experience,” said Gonzalez, who is also the wife of Nick Clegg, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats.

“What happens is that a corporate lawyer comes across a sanctions issue and that person starts doing a bit of trade law. But trade is a tough issue to deal with unless you have a lot muscle to deal with it. The government needs to take a combination of knowledge from UK and US law firms.”

Gonzalez said that the issue was even more acute because “striking bilateral trade agreements is going to be more difficult for the UK government because around the world we are going through a period of protectionism. This is not something that has just started happening – it has been happening for a while.”

Bar leaders in the UK and Hong Kong have turned up the pressure on South Africa over its decision to withdraw from the International Criminal Court.

In an open letter to President Zuma, the heads of four Bar associations call for the Pretoria government to reconsider its decision taken last month. South Africa’s foreign minister, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, announced the move after her government refused to arrest Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir, on war crimes allegations.

The heads of the Bars of England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Hong Kong wrote to Zuma to urge him to reconsider the decision. “We salute South Africa’s proud history of abolishing apartheid,” the Bar leaders said, “and the subsequent establishment of a justice system which eschews impunity.

“We suggest that South Africa has a leadership role in Africa and beyond. Withdrawal from the ICC therefore risks setting a very poor precedent to other nations.”

A spokesman for the Bar Council of England and Wales said that the four associations wrote a joint letter because they were “particularly active” with ICC cases.

Goddard refuses to give evidence to MPs on child sex abuse inquiry – The Times

Operation Midland inquiry riddled with blunders, former judge finds – The Times

City law firm develops AI software to advise clients on Brexit issues – The Lawyer

‘Long overdue’ cohabitation laws urgently needed – Solicitors Journal