Pension Scheme in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Smithson and Others v Hamilton
    • Chancery Division
    • 10 Dec 2007

    A decision to have a pension scheme and the consequential decisions about the structure and design of the scheme are matters for the employer, or at least matters primarily for the employer. This is not to say that the trustees are compelled to accept the employer's design. If the trustees object to it they cannot be compelled to join in executing the Deed and Rules.

  • National Grid Company Plc v Mayes and Others International Power Plc (formerly National Power Plc) v Healy and Others
    • Court of Appeal
    • 10 Feb 1999

    Mr Steinfeld and Mr Inglis-Jones understandably replied that such an approach would run contrary to the general tenor of decided cases over the last 15 years, which show that it is too simplistic to treat an actuarial surplus as being at an employer's disposal. The solution to the present problem lies within the terms of the scheme itself, and not within a world populated by competing philosophies as to the true nature and ownership of an actuarial surplus.

  • Aon Trust Corporation Ltd v KPMG and Others
    • Chancery Division
    • 29 Jul 2004

    Nevertheless it appears to me to be obvious that Parliament recognised that in a money purchase scheme in all normal circumstances the benefits are matched by equivalent assets. This is to be contrasted with a defined benefit scheme, such as a final salary scheme, when assets and liabilities will not match each other unless the actuarial and other assumptions on which the level of contribution was fixed actually occur.

  • Foster Wheeler Ltd v Hanley and Others
    • Court of Appeal
    • 08 Jul 2009

    Accordingly, the court should, where possible, give effect to Barber rights by adhering to the provisions of the relevant scheme where it is possible to do so in preference to some other approach. If some departure is required, it should in general, so far as practicable, represent the minimum interference with the scheme provisions.

  • PNPF Trust Company Ltd v Taylor & Others
    • Chancery Division
    • 28 Jun 2010

    The “reasonable contemplation” of the parties, or rather what can “reasonably be considered to have been within the contemplation of the parties” imports an objective test. It is not, in my view, relevant to know what the parties did or did not actually consider. I am not, for instance, concerned with what the directors of any of the CHAs discussed in their boardroom or considered with their lawyers.

  • Bridge Trustees Ltd v Houldsworth and another (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions intervening)
    • Court of Appeal
    • 04 Mar 2010

    Fourthly, we are also unable to accept that a benefit is precluded from being an MP benefit simply because an actuarial factor is applied at any stage of the calculation, or because the MP benefit pot is increased by reference to a guaranteed or notional return, as with a guaranteed interest fund.

  • Palestine Solidarity Campaign Ltd and Another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 22 Jun 2017

    But the flaw in the Secretary of State's approach is that the guidance has singled out certain types of non-financial factors, concerned with foreign/defence and the other matters to which reference has been made, and stated that administering authorities cannot base investment decisions upon them. In doing this I cannot see how the Secretary of State has acted for a pensions' purpose.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results