header-logo header-logo

Pension scheme clarification

08 July 2010
Issue: 7425 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

High Court ruling in pilots’ litigation spells out employer obligations

Employers may need to revisit their obligations under industry pension schemes, following an important ruling in the high court.

PNPF Trust Company Ltd v Geoff Taylor and others [2010] EWHC 1573 (Ch) (Pilots litigation) provides clarification of legislative provisions for industry-wide pension schemes.

The claimant was the trustee of a pension scheme, the Pilots’ National Pension Fund, which had a substantial funding deficit.

The court interpreted legislation passed in the wake of the Robert Maxwell scandal in the early 1990s, which was designed to protect scheme members from future mismanagement. Employers had to pay into the scheme while still involved, and pay a one-off sum towards any deficit when ceasing to be involved in it (Pensions Act 1995, s 75).

However, it was not clear when an employer ceased to be involved in a pension scheme, or whether there was a gap in between being involved and ceasing to be involved, during which the employer would pay nothing.

Mr Justice Warren held there was no gap between the obligations. On the question of whether the new legislation overruled the existing terms of a pension scheme, Warren J held that the statutory rules underpin the pension scheme rules and do not override them.

Angela Dimsdale Gill, partner at Hogan Lovells, who acted for the trustee, says the judgment was “a much needed clarification of vital legislative provisions for multi-employer, industry-wide schemes such as this one.

“It tells employers when they have an obligation to pay periodic contributions into their schemes and when they become liable to make lump sum payments into the scheme in order to secure benefits.

“It is true however that finance directors generally will now need to go back to the books and carefully evaluate whether their pension liabilities have increased as a result of this judgment. It is even possible that there will be employers who have thought they have left their pension liabilities behind them and who will now find that they are still ‘on the hook’. There could be some sleepless nights.”
 

Issue: 7425 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll