header-logo header-logo

10 November 2016
Issue: 7722 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Barnardo’s loses pension switch appeal

Pension schemes cannot switch retail prices index (RPI) increases for consumer prices index (CPI), the Court of Appeal has held.

Under the 1988 rules of the Barnardo’s pension scheme, pensioners are entitled to annual increases. Barnardo’s v Buckinghamshire [2016] EWCA Civ 1064 concerned whether the trustees of the scheme had the power to replace the RPI measurement of these increases with the CPI or some other index. This would significantly reduce the deficit in the fund but also significantly reduce pensioners’ future annual increases.

The court held that the trustees did not have the power to do this. It also commented that s 67 of the Pensions Act 1995, which protects members’ rights, would not prevent a change of index if the trustees did have the power to make the change.

Fuat Sami, partner at Sackers, said the decision would “continue to leave employers and trustees, who have been grappling with this issue, in an unsatisfactory place.”

Sami explained the court had held that the scheme’s deed does not afford the trustees the ability to select the index by which increases are measured.

“Unless the government moves to consult more widely on amending primary legislation…the ability of schemes to switch from RPI to CPI will continue to depend on how the scheme rules were originally drafted many years ago—it is essentially a lottery,” he said.

“Even for schemes which have clear in-built discretions to switch to another index, more uncertainty lies ahead for both employers and trustees as to whether this is permissible under the legislation.”

Issue: 7722 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll