header-logo header-logo

Pensions cap ruled unlawful

22 June 2020
Issue: 7892 / Categories: Legal News , Pensions
printer mail-detail
The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) pensions cap is unlawful on the grounds of age discrimination, the High Court has held in a landmark case

The case, R (Hughes & Ors) v Board of the PPF [2020] EWHC 1598 (Admin), was brought by 25 claimants including the British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) on behalf of pilots from BMI and Monarch Airlines, whose company pensions had been transferred to the PPF owing to insolvency or inability to meet pension liabilities.

The claimants challenged the PPF’s policy of capping payouts for those below pensionable age at the date of assessment to 90% of the benefits fixed by the scheme. PPF also imposed a ceiling on the total amount payable that varied with age (£41,461 for 65-year-olds and tapering down) and applied the 90% cap to that ceiling.

One of the claimants, Paul Hughes, retired at 57 on a pension of £66,245. Two years later, his former employer became insolvent and the PPF reduced his pension by 75% to £17,481. The claimants also pointed to the European Court of Justice ruling last year, in Hampshire v Board of the PPF (Case C-17/17), that a member state must guarantee that retirees receive at least 50% of their expected pension after the insolvency of their former employer.

Mr Justice Lewis, handing down judgment, held the claimants had been treated less favourably due to their age, ordered that the cap be disapplied and said the claimants could seek to recover arrears for a period of six years.

Kate Allass, partner, and Sally Mantell, associate, of Farrer & Co, who acted for BALPA, said: ‘The current position is that the PPF should have paid, and should still be paying, compensation equivalent to 90% of affected members’ annual pensions.’

Lewis J also confirmed the principle outlined in Hampshire. Allass and Mantell said: ‘This means that the system would need to ensure that the calculations can be adjusted if a member is in fact at risk of receiving less than 50%. The “one-off” initial calculation is unlawful to the extent that it results in members falling below this threshold.

‘In light of the decision, the PPF will now need to rework its methods of calculating compensation due to members to ensure it is in compliance with the law.

‘The decision has wide and significant implications for all employees whose pension schemes are transferred to the PPF on insolvency, not only those represented by Farrer & Co in this judicial review. The disapplication of the cap means that many are now in line to receive payments much closer to their contracted pension benefits. We await the PPF’s proposals regarding the implementation of this decision.’

Issue: 7892 / Categories: Legal News , Pensions
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll