header-logo header-logo

Barnardo’s loses pension switch appeal

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll