Renishaw PLC v Ross Trustees Services Ltd & Anor (Re Renishaw Pension Fund) [2025] EWHC 1445 (Ch) (23 May 2025)

Renishaw PLC v Ross Trustees Services Ltd & Anor (Re Renishaw Pension Fund) [2025] EWHC 1445 (Ch) (23 May 2025)

Rule 6A(2) of the Renishaw Pension Fund rules contains a clear drafting mistake. The correct construction is that a member's final salary pension is, if necessary, to be increased so as not to be less than the annual amount of pension that could be purchased with the Member's Pension Account, not the entire account as an annual sum. This construction aligns with the purpose of the money purchase underpin, the administrative practice since 1992, and avoids irrational and unworkable results.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1445 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Renishaw Plc; First Defendant: Ross Trustees Services Limited; Second Defendant: Louise Callanan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Pension Scheme Construction Claim / Substantive Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Declarations granted in favour of the claimant; representation orders made.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Pension Scheme Rules, Corrective Construction, Money Purchase Underpin, Defined Benefit Schemes, Rectification Principles
Pensions Trusts Contract Interpretation of Pension Scheme Rules Corrective Construction Money Purchase Underpin Defined Benefit Schemes Rectification Principles

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Renishaw Plc

Claimant

Ross Trustees Services Limited

First Defendant

Louise Callanan

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Pension Scheme Construction Claim / Substantive Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct construction of rule 6A(2) of the Renishaw Pension Fund rules?
  2. 2 Does the 'money purchase underpin' require comparison of the final salary pension with the annual pension purchasable with the Member's Pension Account, or with the entire account as an annual sum?
  3. 3 Is there a drafting mistake in rule 6A(2) that requires corrective construction?

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 6A(2) of the Renishaw Pension Fund rules contains a clear drafting mistake. The correct construction is that a member's final salary pension is, if necessary, to be increased so as not to be less than the annual amount of pension that could be purchased with the Member's Pension Account, not the entire account as an annual sum. This construction aligns with the purpose of the money purchase underpin, the administrative practice since 1992, and avoids irrational and unworkable results.

Court Disposition

Declarations granted in favour of the claimant; representation orders made.

Orders

  • Declaration as to the correct construction of rule 6A(2) as set out in the judgment.
  • Declaration that the Fund's historic administrative practice is consistent with the correct construction.