header-logo header-logo

Landmark pension ruling

16 July 2009
Issue: 7378 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employers can adopt pragmatic approach to pension equalisation

Pension lawyers have broadly welcomed a Court of Appeal ruling on pension schemes with mixed retirement dates.

In Foster Wheeler Ltd v Hanley and Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 651, the court held that members of the Foster Wheeler pension scheme with mixed retirement dates of 60 and 65 should be allowed to take all their benefits at an earlier age but with an actuarial reduction for the income that is paid early.

The court overturned an earlier high court ruling in November, which allowed members to take all their benefits without reduction at 60. Lady Justice Arden said this amounted to a “windfall” that was unfair on the company and other members. The company had argued for “split” pensions, where a member took some benefits at 60 and had to wait until 65 for the rest.

Robin Simmons, partner at niche pensions law firm, Sacker & Partners, says: “The appeal demonstrates the judiciary’s willingness to find ways to reach the ‘right’ solution. The High Court’s decision resulted in a windfall for certain members and the Court of Appeal was at pains to find a workaround within the confines of the scheme’s rules.

“It has succeeded in doing so on a construction of the particular scheme’s rules. Other possibilities—such as splitting periods of benefits—might work in other cases.”

Giles Orton, partner at Eversheds, says: “The Court of Appeal has told employers they can adopt pragmatic approaches to equalisation, with no need to allow members windfall bonuses where these are not required to comply with the basics of European discrimination law.

“Equalisation issues have proved very expensive to pension schemes over the years. Many members have been awarded extra benefits because trustees and employers have failed to equalise properly. In this case the courts appear to have recognised that pension schemes are already underfunded and set their face against further benefit windfalls.”

Issue: 7378 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
Is a suspect’s state of mind a ‘fact’ capable of triggering adverse inferences? Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Smith of Corker Binning examines how R v Leslie reshapes the debate
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
back-to-top-scroll