Industry-Wide Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Co-Ordinator Ltd v Industry-Wide Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Trustees Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 3712 (Ch) (20 December 2012)

Industry-Wide Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Co-Ordinator Ltd v Industry-Wide Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Trustees Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 3712 (Ch) (20 December 2012)

The court is not abundantly sure that the omission of a pro-rating provision in Rule 33 was a drafting mistake. The literal meaning of Rule 33 complies with statutory requirements and is not inconsistent, ambiguous, absurd, or unworkable. The scheme as drafted is 'no less advantageous' than its predecessor, and there is no internal or external evidence sufficient to justify judicial correction. The claim for insertion of a pro-rating provision fails.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3712 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Industry-Wide Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Co-ordinator Limited; First Defendant: Industry-Wide Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Trustees Limited; Second Defendant: Terence Fox
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Claim for Construction of Pension Scheme Rules / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Construction of Pension Scheme Rules, Statutory Interpretation, Drafting Errors, Annual Pension Increases, Pro Rating Provisions
Pensions Statutory Interpretation Trusts Construction of Pension Scheme Rules Drafting Errors Annual Pension Increases Pro Rating Provisions

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Industry-Wide Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Co-ordinator Limited

Claimant

Industry-Wide Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Trustees Limited

First Defendant

Terence Fox

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Claim for Construction of Pension Scheme Rules / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 33 of the Industry-Wide Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme should be construed to include a pro-rating provision for the first annual increase in pension payments
  2. 2 Whether omission of pro-rating provision was a drafting mistake correctable by the court

Ratio Decidendi

The court is not abundantly sure that the omission of a pro-rating provision in Rule 33 was a drafting mistake. The literal meaning of Rule 33 complies with statutory requirements and is not inconsistent, ambiguous, absurd, or unworkable. The scheme as drafted is 'no less advantageous' than its predecessor, and there is no internal or external evidence sufficient to justify judicial correction. The claim for insertion of a pro-rating provision fails.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • No declaration that Rule 33 should be read as if it included a pro-rating provision
  • No amendment to the scheme rules