Wakelin &Amp; Ors v Read & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 82 (17 March 2000)

Wakelin &Amp; Ors v Read & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 82 (17 March 2000)

The Pensions Ombudsman erred in law by failing to consider whether there had been a dishonest breach of trust by Lassen and what role Mr Read played in that breach, and by treating the Trustees' position on the other directors' honesty as a legal bar to finding dishonesty against Mr Read. The dispute must be remitted to the Ombudsman for re-determination on the correct legal basis.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 82
Parties
Appellant/complainant: Mr J L Read; Respondents: Trustees of the LEP (UK) Pension Plan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (hart J) on Determination of Pensions Ombudsman / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; order of Hart J set aside; dispute remitted to Pensions Ombudsman for re-determination.
Legal Topics
Dishonest Assistance in Breach of Trust, Trustee Powers and Duties, Pension Scheme Disputes, Procedural Fairness Before Ombudsman, Remedies and Directions Under Pension Schemes Act 1993
Trusts and Equity Pensions Law Dishonest Assistance in Breach of Trust Trustee Powers and Duties Pension Scheme Disputes Procedural Fairness Before Ombudsman Remedies and Directions Under Pension Schemes Act 1993

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr J L Read

Appellant/complainant

Trustees of the LEP (UK) Pension Plan

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court (hart J) on Determination of Pensions Ombudsman / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Pensions Ombudsman erred in law in determining Mr Read was not a dishonest accessory to breach of trust by Lassen
  2. 2 Whether the Ombudsman misapplied legal principles regarding accessory liability and procedural fairness
  3. 3 Whether the Ombudsman had discretion to refuse relief on 'clean hands' grounds after finding no dishonesty

Ratio Decidendi

The Pensions Ombudsman erred in law by failing to consider whether there had been a dishonest breach of trust by Lassen and what role Mr Read played in that breach, and by treating the Trustees' position on the other directors' honesty as a legal bar to finding dishonesty against Mr Read. The dispute must be remitted to the Ombudsman for re-determination on the correct legal basis.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; order of Hart J set aside; dispute remitted to Pensions Ombudsman for re-determination.

Orders

  • Set aside declaration that Trustees are entitled to withhold Mr Read's benefits under the Scheme.
  • Remit dispute to Pensions Ombudsman to re-determine whether Mr Read was a dishonest accessory to a breach of trust by Lassen, considering all evidence of Mr Read's role in the breach.