header-logo header-logo

Pensions

09 December 2010
Issue: 7445 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

HR Trustees Ltd v German and another [2010] EWCA Civ 1349, [2010] All ER (D) 03 (Dec)

Section 91 of the Pensions Act 1995 would not render unenforceable a court-approved compromise of the appeal or cross-appeal. The language of s 91 of the 1995 Act was clear. The section made inalienable the surrender of ‘entitlement’ and ‘right’.

It was directed to cases where there was a deliberate giving up of an actual existing entitlement or an actual existing right. It did not refer to alienating or giving up any right that a person might have. It expressly referred to cases in which a person was entitled to a pension or had a right to a future pension. An established or accepted entitlement or right was clearly within the general language of s 91(1)(a). It implemented the statutory objective that a pension entitlement or right, which enjoyed favourable tax treatment, could not be used as an assignable asset.

It was unlikely that the legislation intended that all disputes about entitlements or rights to pension entitlements were to be resolved by legal proceedings

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll