COCKING V PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD MACKRELL V GAN LIFE & PENSIONS PLC SILAVANT V GAN LIFE & PENSIONS PLC SZILAYAGA V TSB PENSIONS LTD AND TSB LIFE LTD PARKER V HILL SAMUEL LIFE ASSURANCE LTD GREENWOOD V IRISH LIFE ASSURANCE PLC AND MILL‐SMITH INSURANCE BROKERS LTD
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb024881 |
| Date | 01 February 1996 |
| Published date | 01 February 1996 |
| Pages | 185-193 |
| Author | Honour Judge Raymond Jack QC Presiding,Joanna Gray |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
REDRESS
BY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS
OR JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS?
PENSIONS REVIEW DOES NOT PRECLUDE A
DAY
IN COURT
COCKING
V PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
MACKRELL
V GAN LIFE & PENSIONS PLC
SILAVANT
V GAN LIFE & PENSIONS PLC
SZILAYAGA
V TSB PENSIONS LTD (1) AND TSB LIFE LTD (2)
PARKER
V HILL SAMUEL LIFE ASSURANCE LTD
GREENWOOD
V IRISH LIFE ASSURANCE PLC (1) AND MILL-
SMITH
INSURANCE BROKERS LTD (2)
HIGH
COURT
OF
JUSTICE,
QUEENS
BENCH
DIVISION,
BRISTOL
MERCAN-
TILE
COURT
(HIS
HONOUR
JUDGE
RAYMOND
JACK
QC
PRESIDING)
Date of Judgment: 8th January, 1996
THE FACTS
This case concerned applications that
the aforementioned six actions be
stayed. The six separate actions arose
out of the personal pensions missell-
ing that in turn forms the basis of the
SIB guidance that initiated in Octo-
ber 1994, the Review of Past Business
on Pension Transfers and Opt-outs.
That review is currently being imple-
mented by the Personal Investment
Authority (PIA) and its members and
is designed to identify individuals
who have been sold personal pen-
sions in circumstances so inappropri-
ate to their individual needs that it
constitutes a breach of the product
provider or Independent Financial
Advisers' (IFAs) compliance obliga-
tions under the Financial Services Act
(FSA) 1986. The review is also
185
To continue reading
Request your trial