Fisher & Ors v Harrison & Ors

Fisher & Ors v Harrison & Ors

The consent order and freezing order were invalid and unenforceable because they purported to assign and restrain receipt of pension benefits in contravention of s.91 of the Pensions Act 1995. The forfeiture clause (Rule 19(b)) only applied to future benefits, not to sums already due, but the consent order could not be severed to preserve rights to those sums. The appeal was dismissed and both orders set aside.

Parties
Appellants: Fisher & Ors; Respondents: Harrison & Ors; Advocate to the Court: Clive Lewis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Pension Benefits, Assignment of Pension Rights, Interpretation of Pension Scheme Rules, Effect of Consent Orders, Freezing Orders (mareva Injunctions), Statutory Inalienability of Pension Rights
Pensions Law Trusts Law Contract Law Forfeiture of Pension Benefits Assignment of Pension Rights Interpretation of Pension Scheme Rules Effect of Consent Orders Freezing Orders (mareva Injunctions) +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fisher & Ors

Appellants

Harrison & Ors

Respondents

Clive Lewis

Advocate to the Court

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consent order and freezing order were valid in light of s.91 of the Pensions Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether the scheme’s forfeiture clause (Rule 19(b)) applied to accrued pension rights already due for payment
  3. 3 Whether the consent order could be severed to preserve rights to sums already due

Ratio Decidendi

The consent order and freezing order were invalid and unenforceable because they purported to assign and restrain receipt of pension benefits in contravention of s.91 of the Pensions Act 1995. The forfeiture clause (Rule 19(b)) only applied to future benefits, not to sums already due, but the consent order could not be severed to preserve rights to those sums. The appeal was dismissed and both orders set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Consent order dated 30 May 2000 set aside
  • Freezing order dated 7 April 1998 (and continued 16 December 1999) set aside