The Pensions Ombudsman v CMG Pension Trustees & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 1258, concerned the questions of whether the PO fulfilled the criteria of a ‘competent court’ under the Pensions Act 1995. The High Court had previously, in a case to which the PO was not party, held the trustee must obtain an order from a ‘competent court’ before recovering alleged overpayments where the amount and rate of deduction was disputed. The High Court held the PO was not a ‘competent court’, and therefore the trustee must apply to the county court.
The PO appealed, but was unsuccessful.
Lady Justice Asplin, delivering the main judgment, said the PO ‘only has jurisdiction where a matter is referred by a member or beneficiary or on behalf of such a person. The jurisdiction in this regard is one-sided, therefore and accordingly, is unlike that of a court… it seems unlikely that parliament would have intended the reference to “competent court”… to include the PO in circumstances in which a trustee has no power itself to apply to the PO for such an order’.
Addleshaw Goddard partners Catherine McAllister and Susan Garrett, who act for the trustee of CMG, said: ‘If the PO determines the amount of an overpayment and that it can be recouped, the trustee must then make an enforcement application to the county court before actioning any deduction.
‘In future we expect that the PO will change practice so the wording of PO determinations can be easily enforced by the county court. In the meantime, we recommend that trustees ask the PO to set out in the determination both the amount of the total overpayment and the amount and frequency of the deductions that the trustee may make.’
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
