header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Tribunals—Upper tribunal—Procedure

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
24 February 2011
Issue: 7454 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When silence speaks volumes
Is a suspect’s state of mind a ‘fact’ capable of triggering adverse inferences? Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Smith of Corker Binning examines how R v Leslie reshapes the debate
Public Accounts Committee warn of ‘extinction’ risk for legal aid
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
NLJ this week: The insider returns
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
NLJ this week: Drawing the line on contempt
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
NLJ this week: Stop and search by the numbers
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll