header-logo header-logo

15 July 2020
Issue: 7895 / Categories: Legal News , Pensions
printer mail-detail

Closing the pensions window

The Barber window closed for Safeway pensioners when the Pensions Act took force, the Court of Appeal has held unanimously

The long-running case concerned the date on which the Safeway occupational pension scheme for employees was equalised at 65 years old for both women and men (it was previously 60 for women and 65 for men).

The Barber window refers to the 1990 case of Barber v Guardian, after which all occupational pension schemes were required to have equal retirement ages for men and women. Schemes were told to set a date for levelling up, and were to grant both sexes the more generous policy during the period between the judgment and that date (the Barber window).

Safeway made a written announcement that, from December 1991, the pension age for both sexes was 65. However, it did not issue a written deed to implement the change until May 1996. One issue in Safeway v Newton & Safeway Pension Trustees [2020] EWCA Civ 689 was whether the benefits were equalised in December 1991 or May 1996.

On referral to Luxembourg, however, the European Court of Justice ruled the Barber window did not close until a change in domestic law brought about enforceable rights and remedies.

Handing down judgment this week, the Court of Appeal held s 62 of the Pensions Act 1995, which came into force on 1 January 1996, had effectively closed the Barber window from that date.

Giving the lead judgment, Lord Justice Floyd said: ‘Even if EU law requires the scheme itself to be modified, s 62 has this effect.

‘It cannot make a difference that the modifications are initiated by Parliament rather than the administrators of the scheme… The closure of the Barber window is defined by the point at which domestic law provides legally enforceable and certain rights for members to enforce.’

Issue: 7895 / Categories: Legal News , Pensions
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

NEWS
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
back-to-top-scroll