header-logo header-logo

24 February 2011
Issue: 7454 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

Tribunals—Upper tribunal—Procedure

Pensions Regulator v Michel Van de Wiele NV [2011] All ER (D) 138 (Feb)

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), Warren J (P),
17 Jan 2011

The Upper Tribunal is not bound by the normal constraints of a review or appeal when considering a matter referred from the Pensions Regulator. It is able to take account of evidence not available to the regulator or presented to the determination panel.

Robert Ham QC and Edward Sawyer (instructed by Ward Hadaway) for VDW. Raquel Agnello QC and Thomas Robinson (instructed by the Pensions Regulator) for the regulator.

The underlying proceedings concerned whether or not a company and its director was attempting to minimise or avoid contributions to a pension fund. The determination panel (the panel), established by the Pensions Regulator (the regulator) pursuant to the Pensions Act 2004, held a hearing following which it issued a contribution notice saying that the company was liable, but that the director was not.

The company referred the matter to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal). Issues arose

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

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll