Case Tracker: Key Pensions Cases

Case tracker: key pensions cases

Pensions in Dispute: Case tracker | January 2018

Case Summary / Status
Barnardo’s v Buckinghamshire [2016] / The trustees sought guidance as to whether they could substitute CPI for RPI under the scheme rules. The Court of Appeal ruled that there was no power under the rules to change from RPI to CPI unless RPI was no longer published. To read more, see our note on RPI/CPI. / The Supreme Court has granted permission toappeal.
Bradbury v BBC [2017] / The Court of Appeal has ruled that the scheme definition of ‘basic salary’ was wide enough to allow the BBC to determine that part of any future pay increase was not pensionable. The Court of Appeal also ruled that the BBC had not breached its implied duty of good faith in making scheme changes; the BBC’s conduct had to be assessed against the reality of the economic background.
Walker v Innospec [2017] / Mr Walker complained that he had been unlawfully discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation, as his civil partner (now husband) would receive a lower survivor pension than if he was survived by a spouse of the opposite sex. The Supreme Court has now ruled that the Equality Act provision which permits restricted benefits for same-sex spouses and civil partners is unlawful; they should be given the same pension rights as opposite-sex spouses.
IBM v Dalgleish [2017] / The Court of Appeal has overturned anearlier ruling that IBM’s actions in closing two schemes to future accrual and capping pensionable pay were in breach of its duties of good faith and of trust and confidence. The Court of Appeal held that members’ expectations (a key factor in the High Court’s decision) were just one of many issues to be considered. In addition, withholding future pay rises unless members signed non-pensionability agreements did not breach IBM’s duty of trust and confidence. However, serious flaws in itspre-closure consultation process had breached that duty, and members would be entitled to claim damages for this breach. It is understood that the decision will not be appealed. To read more, click here.
Safeway v Newton [2016] / The Court of Appeal dismissed the argument thatnormal pension agein the Safeway scheme was equalised at age 65 for men and women in 1991, when announcements were sent to members andconcluded that the scheme’s amendment power required amendments to be made by deed. A question about whether the power to retrospectively amend the scheme rules to equalise normal pension age is prohibited under European law has been referred to the European Court. As the trust deed was not amended until 1996 the decision could significantly increase scheme liabilities. To read more, see our note on Equalisation disputes. / The Court of Appeal referred a question to the European Court of Justice.
Trustees of Swansea University Pension and Assurance Scheme v Williams [2017] / Mr Williams complained of unlawful discrimination arising from his disability; his enhanced ill-health pension was calculated on the basis of his pensionable salary as at the date of his retirement, but for the previous three yearshe had been working reduced hours to accommodate his disability. The Court of Appeal ruled that there was no discrimination merely because the ill-health pension could have been enhanced to a greater extent in different circumstances. / Mr Williams is understood to be seeking leave to appeal.
United Biscuits (Pension Trustees)v HMRC [2017] / HMRC currently treats pension fund management services as exempt supplies for VAT purposes when the services are provided by insurers. The High Court rejected a claim that DB schemes should be able to recover VAT in relation to fund management services supplied by non-insurer entities. HMRC has subsequently announced that current ‘exempt supply’ treatment for insurers will be withdrawn from 1 April 2019.
Box Clever Group Pension Scheme (Granada/ITVv the Pensions Regulator)[2018] / This is a long-running dispute about the decision to impose financial support directions (FSDs) on five companies in the ITV group in 2011. To read more about appeals against decisions of the Determinations Panel, see our note on how the Pensions Regulator’s powers are exercised. / The appeal has been listed for early 2018.
Lloyds Banking Group Pensions Trustees Ltd v Lloyds Bank plc and others [2018] / The trustee of several Lloyds Bank pension schemes has made an application to the High Court to determine whether GMP equalisation is required and, if so, how it should be achieved. The case will provide further clarity in relation to GMP equalisation. We act for the trustee. / A trial window is listed for June 2018.
British Airways v Airways Pension Scheme Trustee Ltd [2017] / British Airways challenged the decision by the trustees of the Airways Pension Scheme to amend the scheme rules to grant themselves a unilateral power to award discretionary pension increases, and subsequent decisions to exercise this power. It is now appealing the High Court’s decision. / The Court of Appeal is due to hear the appeal on 1 May2018.

Pensions in Dispute: Case tracker | January 2018

For more information on avoiding and managing pensions disputes, please visit our PensionsinDispute site at

Key contacts

Maria Stimpson
Partner
+44 20 3088 3665
/
Däna Burstow
Partner
+44 20 3088 3644
/
Neil Bowden
Partner
+44 20 3088 3431
/
Jane Higgins
Partner
+44 20 3088 3161
/
Jason Shaw
Senior Associate
+44 20 3088 2241