Mettoy Pension Trustees Ltd v Evans
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1990 |
| Year | 1990 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Trusts - Pension scheme - Variation - Provisions for dissolving scheme on company going into liquidation - Deed varying provisions giving company discretion in applying trust funds on dissolution - Whether fiduciary power - Whether deed to be set aside - Appropriate date for liquidation of company
A large company with several subsidiaries decided in 1967 to replace its existing pension scheme for its employees with a new non-contributory pension scheme approved by the Inland Revenue under section 379 of the
By rule 3 of the 1969 rules, the annual amounts of pension payable at the normal retirement date were not to exceed the limits then imposed by section 379 of the
The introduction of a new code for Inland Revenue approval of occupational pension schemes by the
By a deed made between the company and the trustees in September 1979, alterations were made to the 1969 deed, in exercise of the power in clause 6, giving wider powers to the trustees, and the existing system of investing by insurance premiums paid under a group pension policy was changed to that of a managed fund. In September 1980 a newly incorporated trustee company was purportedly appointed by deed as sole trustee, but, since it was not a trust corporation, the deed was ineffective to discharge the individual trustees. At the same time, the company and the trustee company, in purported exercise of clause 6 of the 1969 deed, brought in new rules expressed to replace entirely the clauses and rules of the 1969 deed. Rule 13(5) of those 1980 rules differed from the winding up provisions in rule 11(b) of the 1969 rules in providing that any surplus of the trust fund after securing various classes of liabilities in full was to be applied “at the absolute discretion” of the company to secure further benefits for pensioners within the limits stated in the rules and any further balance remaining was to be paid to the company and any participating company in cash. In March 1983 a deed was executed to rectify the error in appointing the trustee company sole trustee but otherwise it was executed by the company and the trustees on the basis that it was essentially the same as the 1980 deed.
By March 1983 the company's financial state was precarious and in October the company's bankers appointed two receivers of its assets and undertaking. On 15 November a petition for the winding up of the company was presented and on 16 January 1984 a compulsory winding up order was made. On 28 February the one remaining subsidiary company was sold and in April all the company's remaining employees were dismissed. There was a surplus in the pension fund and the trustee company issued a summons for the court to determine, inter alia, how the property and moneys held by it ought to be applied in consequence of the winding up of the pension scheme.
On the questions (1) whether the reference to the company going into liquidation in rule 11(b) of the 1969 rules should be construed as the date of presentation of the petition or the date on which the order on that petition was made; (2) whether the discretion given to the company as the employer by rule 13(5) of the 1983 rules to apply surplus funds for pensioners was in the nature of a fiduciary power and whether in the circumstances of a winding up it was exercisable by the receivers or liquidator; (3) whether the 1983 deed and rules were (a) wholly valid or (b) valid except for rule 13 or (c) valid except in so far as they purported to divest the trustees of the discretion to augment benefits given by rule 11(b) of the 1969 rules:—
Held, (1) that the phrase “going into liquidation” in rule 11(b) of the 1969 rules indicated the actual beginning of the winding up, as a result of the making of the winding up order, not its “deemed” statutory beginning, and should be so construed (post, p. 1613C).
(2) That the “absolute discretion” to augment benefits given to the company by rule 13(5) of the 1983 rules was a fiduciary power in the full sense and could not be released; and that, accordingly, it was not part of assets of which the company was beneficial owner, nor could it be the subject of a charge created by a debenture or become exercisable by a receiver appointed under such a debenture or by a liquidator of the company, and that, in those circumstances, it would be a matter for the court to decide on the appropriate methods of its exercise (post, pp. 1615E–G, 1616E–F, 1618A–B).
(3) That on the true construction of clause 6 of the 1969 trust deed, the property and moneys of the pension scheme held by the trustees should be applied in accordance with rule 13 of the 1983 rules on the footing that the 1983 deed was wholly valid (post, p. 1632B).
(4) That the court would have set aside the 1983 trust deed if it was clear that the trustees would not have exercised their discretion to execute the deed as they had done if they had fully taken into account the changes made by rule 13 in the 1983 rules relating to the winding up of the scheme at a time when the company's insolvency was imminent; that it had not been shown that they had no proper understanding of rule 13(5) or that, if advised that it was a fiduciary power, the effect of which was to transfer to the company an unfettered discretion over surplus, they would not have executed the deed of 1983 as they did; that, therefore, the deed remained valid and could not be set aside (post, pp. 1624A–D, 1629C–D, G–1630A).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
Abrahams' Will Trusts, In re [
Allen-Meyrick's Will Trusts, In re [
Baden's Deed Trusts, In re [
Blausten v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [
Bonhote v. Henderson [
Courage Group's Pension Schemes, In re [
D'Angibau, In re (
Dundee General Hospitals Board of Management v. Walker [
Dutton v. Thompson (
El Awadi v. Bank of Credit and Commerce International S.A. Ltd. [
General Share and Trust Co. v. Wetley Brick and Pottery Co. (
Gisborne v. Gisborne (
Greaves, In re; Public Trustee v. Ash [
Gulbenkian's Settlements, In re [
Hastings-Bass, decd. In re [
Hay's Settlement Trusts, In re [
Hodges, In re; Dovey v. Ward (
Hood of Avalon (Lady) v. Mackinnon [
Imperial Foods Ltd. Pension Scheme, In re [
James v. Couchman (
Kerr v. British Leyland (Staff) Trustees Ltd. (unreported), 26 March 1986; Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Transcript No. 286 of 1986,
Klug v. Klug [...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pitt and another v Holt and another; Futter and another v Futter and Others
...is reported at [1975] Ch 25 . 3 In a succession of later cases at first instance, starting in 1990 with a pension case, Mettoy Pension Trustees Ltd v Evans [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1587 , a principle, described as the rule in Re Hastings-Bass, has been developed and applied to facts very differen......
-
Re Z Trust
...In re, Manisty v. Manisty, [1974] Ch. 17; [1973] 2 All E.R. 1203, distinguished. (19) Mettoy Pension Trustees Ltd. v. Evans, [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1587; [1991] 2 All E.R. 513, distinguished. (20) Miller (James) & Partners Ltd. v. Whitworth St. Estates (Manchester) Ltd., [1970] A.C. 583; [1970] 1 ......
-
Von Knieriem v Bermuda Trust Company Ltd
...re Skeats' SettlementELR (1889) 42 ChD 522 Re SomesELR [1896] 1 Ch 250 Re GreavesELR [1954] 1 Ch 434 Mettoy Pension Trustees v EvansWLR [1990] 1 WLR 1587 British Coal Corp v British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Trustees [1993] PLR 303 Rawson Trust v Perlman, Supreme Court of Bahamas, 25......
-
Pitt and another v Holt and another; Futter and another v Futter and Others
...into account. 17 Buckley LJ's statement was expressed in the negative. However, in a series of subsequent cases, beginning with Mettoy Pension Trustees v Evans [1990] 1 WLR 1587, (where Warner J appears to have first used the phrase “the rule in Hastings-Bass”) the courts have positively ap......
-
Recent Trust Law Decisions in the Court of Appeal
...are, however, beyond the scope of this OnPoint. 2 Starting, according to Lloyd LJ, with Mettoy Pension Trustees Ltd v Evans and others [1991] 2 All ER 513. 3 Pitt and Futter at 65. d August 2011 /Issue 11 2 3. However, if trustees have taken legal advice and their actions (on advice) have u......
-
Hastings-Bass Rule Reborn
...flexible new tool for those instances where something has gone awry in the exercise of a fiduciary power. Footnotes 1 [2013] 2 AC 108 2 [1990] 1 WLR 1587 3 [1975] Ch 25 at 41G 4 'Aspects of the law of mistake: Re Hastings-Bass', Trusts & Trustees, 15 (4), (2009), 189 5 TAA 2014, s2 6 Ib......
-
English fiduciary standards and trust law.
...deer-hunting licenses on its land). (46.) In re Hastings-Bass, 1975 Ch. 25, 41 (C.A.). (47.) Mettoy Pension Trustees Ltd. v. Evans [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1587, 1624 (Ch.). In Re Duxbury's Settlement Trusts, [1995] 3 All E.R. 145 (C.A.), three trustees appointed a sole trustee to replace themselves......
-
Trust Parties’ Uniquely Easy Access to Rescission: Analysis, Critique and Reform
...Mistake, and Tax Avoidance’ (2013) 4 British Tax Review566, 575; H¨acker, n 5 above, 345–51; Virgo, n 12 above, 200–202.20 [1990] 1 WLR 1587.21 Pitt vHolt [2011] EWCA Civ 197, [2012] Ch 132.22 Pitt n8above.23 Sieff vFox [2005] EWHC 1312 (Ch), [2005] 1 WLR 3811 (Sieff) at [119].C2019 The Au......
-
The Pension Trust: Fit For Purpose?
...2 All ER 597, 605. See also Kerr vBritish Leyland (Staff) Trustee Ltd (1986) [2001] WTLR1071; Mettoy Pension Trustees Ltd vEvans [1991] 2 All ER 513, 537, 549 (Mettoy).C2019 The Author. The Modern Law Review C2019 The Modern Law Review Limited.(2019) 82(5) MLR 800–832 The Pension Trust: F......