header-logo header-logo

24 January 2019 / Roderick Ramage
Issue: 7825 / Categories: Features , Pensions
printer mail-detail

Conflict resolution

Roderick Ramage discusses how pension scheme employers & trustees should tackle pension tussles

In most circumstances it is in the interests of both the employer and its pension scheme that different interests are represented on the board of trustees. Where there might be conflicts, the duties and powers of the parties must be examined to ascertain whether there is actually a conflict.

A rigid regime to avoid conflicts can be counter-productive and impose unreasonable restrictions on the conduct of both the employer’s and the scheme’s activities; but where conflicts are real and serious, the resignation of one or more or all of the conflicted parties might be necessary.

‘Conflict of interest’ does not imply actual conflict between the parties, but when the directors of the employer, and even more so its shareholders, are trustees, they have legal conflicts of interest: they have duties to both parties whose interest can become opposed with differences that must be resolved. There can also be conflicts if trustees are also members of the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Jonathan Askin

Hugh James—Jonathan Askin

London corporate and commercial team announces partner appointment

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Firm names partner as London office managing partner

Kingsley Napley—Jonathan Grimes

Kingsley Napley—Jonathan Grimes

Firm appoints new head of criminal litigation team

NEWS
Personal injury lawyers have welcomed a government U-turn on a ‘substantial prejudice’ defence that risked enabling defendants in child sexual abuse civil cases to have proceedings against them dropped
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll