header-logo header-logo

30 October 2009
Issue: 7391 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

Pension—Maladministration of scheme—Report by Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration

R (on the application of Equitable Members Action Group) v HM Treasury and others [2009] EWHC 2495 (Admin), [2009] All ER (D) 163 (Oct)

Queen’s Bench Division, Divisional Court, Carnwath LJ and Gross J, 15 October 2009

The Divisional Court has given further consideration to the circumstances under which the responsible minister is entitled to reject recommendations by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the ombudsman).

Dinah Rose QC, Javan Herberg, Stephen Grosz and Jessica Boyd (instructed by Bindmans LLP) for the claimant. Clive Lewis QC, Paul Nicholls and Deok Joo Rhee (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the defendant. Tony Child (instructed by Beachcroft LLP) for the interested parties. Jason Coppel (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the intervener.

The claimant was a company limited by guarantee whose members comprised about 21,000 current and former policyholders with the Equitable Life Assurance Society (Equitable). The claim concerned the government’s response, announced in Parliament in January 2009, to a report by the ombudsman entitled Equitable Life: A Decade of Regulatory Failure of July

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll