Hamar v Pensions Ombudsman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 March 1997 |
| Date | 18 March 1997 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Saville and Lord Justice Millett
Pensions - validity issue not raised before Ombudsman - trustees precluded from raising matter in High Court
Where the validity of an application by a deferred pensioner to transfer his accrued rights from one pension scheme to another was not raised by the trustees of the scheme at the hearing of a complaint before the Pensions Ombudsman, the trustees were precluded from raising the matter on an appeal to the High Court under section 151(4) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993.
The Court of Appeal so stated, inter alia, allowing an appeal by the complainant, John Michael French, from the decision of Mr Justice Collins made on October 20, 1995 whereby he allowed the appeal of the trustees, Christopher James Hamar and Lockville Trustees Ltd, from the decision of the Pensions Ombudsman.
In June 1992 the complainant complained to the ombudsman that he had suffered injustice because of maladministration by the trustees who had failed to pay the transfer value of his accrued pension rights under a small self-administered occupational pension scheme established by Zengrange Ltd for the benefit of its employees to another scheme, Greplite Ltd Executive Pensions Fund. The ombudsman upheld his complaint.
The complainant was the managing director of Zengrange Ltd and, as such, an employed member of the scheme until his dismissal on May 30, 1989. He was also a trustee until his removal from the trusteeship on September 13, 1989.
On learning that he had been removed as a trustee, he wrote a letter dated October 15, 1990 to the trustees formally requiring them to transfer his entitlement to "another scheme, details of which shall be advised in due course".
He received no reply and wrote again on August 24, 1991 repeating his requirement and identifying the other scheme as "the Greplite Ltd Executive Pensions Fund". The letter indicated that the scheme was then still in the course of preparation, but it was established a week or two later. Inland Revenue approval was obtained on April 10, 1992.
Mr Mark Herbert, QC, who did not appear below, for the complainant; Mr Christopher Nugee for the trustees.
LORD JUSTICE MILLETT said that the judge set aside the order of the ombudsman on the ground that the complainant had never made a valid application for the payment of his transfer value...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harland & Wolff Pension Trustees Ltd v Aon Consulting Financial Services Ltd
... ... 's rules gave power to change the Scheme rules retrospectively, subject to not affecting pensions in payment and not increasing contributions without the member's consent; and ... ...
-
Finlan v Eyton Morris Winfield and another
...to be adduced at trial: see Goode v Martin [2002] 1WLR 1828, 1838 approving Hobhouse LJ's observation in Lloyds Bank plc v Rogers The Times, 24 March 1997; Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Transcript ? 1904 of 1996: 'the policy of the section is that, if factual issues are in any event goi......
- Roberts v Gill & Company and Another
- Stewart v Engel and another