header-logo header-logo

04 August 2011
Issue: 7477 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Ruling on pensions

The Supreme Court has delivered an important ruling on the dividing line between defined benefit and defined contribution occupational pension schemes

Defined benefit schemes, such as final salary schemes, pay a return based on salary and require the employer to bear the risk of the investment falling short. Defined contribution schemes, also called money purchase schemes, pay a return related to contributions made by employee and employer.

In Houldsworth v Bridge Trustees [2011] UKSC 42, the justices held that defined contribution schemes can include hybrid schemes where there is a guarantee on return, and where the scheme uses internal annuitisation to provide pensions from the scheme itself rather than to purchase annuities from an insurer.

Zoe Lynch, partner at Sacker & Partners, said the decision “clarifies confusion around what is a defined contribution scheme, which can have a big impact on members’ rights”.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), which intervened in the case, said the decision would place some schemes outside the scope of existing legislation. It said it would introduce retrospective legislation to clarify that benefits cannot be regarded as money purchase benefits if it is possible for a funding deficit to arise.

Stephanie Hawthorne, editor of Pensions World, said: “This is a complex and important decision concerning the definition of money purchase benefits where the underlying legislation going back to the 1980s was poorly drafted.

“Money purchase benefits fall outside the reach of some pension scheme protection legislation including the Pension Protection Fund, employer debt provisions and the statutory priority order on winding up. Relatively few schemes will be affected by this decision as few schemes offer similar benefits to those in question but the DWP has responded to the ruling by announcing it will introduce retrospective changes to the legislation, so protecting scheme members.”

“There could be an amendment to the Pensions Bill currently going through parliament widening the scope of member protection.”

Issue: 7477 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Firm awards training contracts to paralegals through internal programme

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Private client disputes specialist joins commercial litigation team

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Cumbria firm appoints new head of residential property

NEWS
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 
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
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’
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’ 
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
back-to-top-scroll