Pollock v Reed [2015] EWHC 3685 (Ch) (18 December 2015)

Pollock v Reed [2015] EWHC 3685 (Ch) (18 December 2015)

The correct construction of regulation 12(3) of the 1991 Regulations is that the actuary, when certifying that transfer credits in the receiving scheme are 'broadly no less favourable' than rights in the transferring scheme, must compare the package of rights as defined by the scheme rules and not take into account the security or likelihood of payment of those benefits. Security is a matter for the trustees' separate consideration.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 3685 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Derek John Pollock, Roger Stephen Hoad, John Fulton Irwin, Independent Trustee Services Limited, Roger Charles Abraham, James Billinghurst, Catherine Merlane (as Trustees of the Halcrow Pension Scheme); First Defendant: Colin Reed; Second Defendant: Halcrow Group Limited; Third Defendant: The Board of the Pension Protection Fund; Fourth Defendant: The Pensions Regulator
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim / Judgment After Expedited Trial
Outcome
Issues 1(a) and 1(b) determined in favour of Mr Reed and the Pensions Regulator; the actuary cannot take security into account for the purposes of the regulation 12(3) certificate. No argument heard on Issue 2. No approval granted for the Transaction on the basis sought.
Legal Topics
Bulk Transfer of Pension Rights, Actuarial Certification, Preservation of Benefits, Trustee Duties, Statutory Interpretation
Pensions Law Trusts Law Employment Law Bulk Transfer of Pension Rights Actuarial Certification Preservation of Benefits Trustee Duties Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Derek John Pollock, Roger Stephen Hoad, John Fulton Irwin, Independent Trustee Services Limited, Roger Charles Abraham, James Billinghurst, Catherine Merlane (as Trustees of the Halcrow Pension Scheme)

Claimant

Colin Reed

First Defendant

Halcrow Group Limited

Second Defendant

The Board of the Pension Protection Fund

Third Defendant

The Pensions Regulator

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim / Judgment After Expedited Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether, for a bulk transfer of pension scheme assets and liabilities without member consent under regulation 12(3)(a) of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Preservation of Benefit) Regulations 1991, the scheme actuary can lawfully and properly take into account the security of benefits (likelihood of payment) when certifying that transfer credits in the receiving scheme are 'broadly no less favourable' than rights in the transferring scheme; and, if not, what is the correct comparison to be made.

Ratio Decidendi

The correct construction of regulation 12(3) of the 1991 Regulations is that the actuary, when certifying that transfer credits in the receiving scheme are 'broadly no less favourable' than rights in the transferring scheme, must compare the package of rights as defined by the scheme rules and not take into account the security or likelihood of payment of those benefits. Security is a matter for the trustees' separate consideration.

Court Disposition

Issues 1(a) and 1(b) determined in favour of Mr Reed and the Pensions Regulator; the actuary cannot take security into account for the purposes of the regulation 12(3) certificate. No argument heard on Issue 2. No approval granted for the Transaction on the basis sought.

Orders

  • Representation orders made for Mr Reed to represent members and beneficiaries of HPS; Trustees to represent those in favour of the Transaction.
  • No order approving the Transaction as proposed.