Lloyds Banking Group Pensions Trustees Ltd v Lloyds Bank Plc
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Morgan |
| Judgment Date | 06 December 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 3343 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HC-2017-001399 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 06 December 2018 |
[2018] EWHC 3343 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
BUSINESS LIST (CHD)
Royal Courts of Justice
7 Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Mr Justice Morgan
Case No: HC-2017-001399
Edward Sawyer (instructed by Allen & Overy LLP) for the Claimant
Keith Rowley QC, John CavanaghQC andAndrew Mold (instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP) for the First and Second Defendants
Andrew Short QC and Nicholas Hill (instructed by Walkers Solicitors) for the Third to Fifth Defendants
Holly Stout (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Sixth and Seventh Defendants
Hearing dates: 3 December 2018
Judgment Approved
I handed down judgment in this case on 26 October 2018. The neutral citation of that judgment is [2018] EWHC 2839 (Ch). On 3 December 2018, I heard submissions on matters which were consequential on that judgment, including the form of the order to be made to give effect to it. At that hearing, I resolved a number of differences between the parties as to the form of the order. There was one particular point on which I heard detailed submissions and then gave my ruling, with reasons. In view of the fact that my earlier judgment may have been of interest in the pensions industry generally, it was agreed that it would be helpful for me to set out in a short judgment my reasons on the new point which had been argued. This judgment contains those reasons. I will use the same abbreviations as in my earlier judgment.
The parties provided me with a draft order which contained, in particular, a declaration in relation to Method D2, as described in my earlier judgment. The draft order contained a declaration that Method D2 was not at present available to be adopted as the Banks had not consented to that being done and their consent was required pursuant to section 24E(2) of PSA 1993. The draft order then provided:
“However, in principle, Method D2 is a lawful method to which the Banks could consent [provided that benefits are first adjusted in accordance with paragraph 2 above and paragraph 4.5 below].”
The words in square brackets in this part of the draft order were suggested by the RBs but were opposed by the Banks and by the Crown. The words in brackets cross-referred to paragraphs 2 and 4.5 of the draft order. In summary, those paragraphs provided that whereas the Trustee was obliged to equalise benefits, the Banks were entitled to require the Trustee to adopt Method C2. Thus, the words in brackets provided that the Trustee had first to adopt Method C2 to equalise benefits and only then would it be able to use Method D2, if the Banks consented. The Banks and the Crown submitted to me that, in order to implement Method D2, it was not necessary first to equalise benefits in accordance with Method C2.
I said comparatively little about Method D2 in my earlier judgment. The description of Method D2 in Appendix B stated that it operated in the same way as Method D1, save that Method D2 involved GMP conversion pursuant to sections 24A to 24H of PSA 1993. I described Method D1 in various places in my earlier judgment. One such place was in [286]-[288], by reference to an illustration provided by Aon Hewitt, the actuaries instructed by the Banks. I will not repeat that description in this judgment.
Because the figures used in the Aon Hewitt illustration were not the same as the figures used in the worked examples in Appendix B to my judgment, I will explain how the Aon Hewitt method for implementing Method D1 would apply to the examples in Appendix B.
All of the examples in Appendix B show figures, year by year, for the unequalised female pension and the unequalised male pension. Indeed, all of the examples show the same figures for the unequalised female pension and then the same figures for the unequalised male pension (although the male and female figures are of course different from each other). The differences between one worked example and another result from the method of equalisation being illustrated in the example. If one takes the examples for Method B or C1 or C2, it can be seen that the first seven columns of the examples are the same. It can also be seen that it is the right-hand column of the example which sets out the different results of equalisation using the different methods.
The difference between the parties which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lloyds Banking Group Pensions Trustees Ltd v Lloyds Bank Plc
...as to the form of the order to be made to give effect to the earlier judgment. The neutral citation of the supplemental judgment is [2018] EWHC 3343 (Ch) and it is reported at [2019] Pens LR 6. I will refer to both judgments together as “the 2018 2 The 2018 judgment dealt with a large numb......
-
GMP Equalisation And Historic Transfer Payments
...issues arising from its decisions in Lloyds Banking Group Pensions Trustees Limited v Lloyds Bank plc [2018] EWHC 2839 (Ch) and [2018] EWHC 3343 (Ch). A quick reminder - what are GMPs, why is there an issue and what did the earlier judgments Guaranteed minimum pensions (GMPs) were introduce......