header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
29 March 2012
Issue: 7506 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Pensions

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

R (on the application of FDA and others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and another [2012] EWCA Civ 332, [2012] All ER (D) 139 (Mar)

It was permissible, within s 150 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, to use an index compiled on the basis of the geometric mean, rather than the arithmetic mean, for determining whether, and to what extent, state pensions and other annual payments had lost their value in relation to the general level of prices.

It would have required clear exclusionary or limiting words in s 150(1) before it could fairly be concluded that Parliament had intended that such an index could not be invoked by the secretary of state for the purposes of that section. There were no such words. Section 150(1) left it to the secretary of state to select the method by which he estimated whether, and if so to what extent, certain benefits and pensions had lost their value in relation to the general level of prices obtaining in Great Britain during a particular year. Provided

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll