Carr v Thales Pension Trustees Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 949 (Ch) (22 April 2020)

Carr v Thales Pension Trustees Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 949 (Ch) (22 April 2020)

The natural and ordinary reading of Rule 1.11 gives primacy to the express reference to RPI in Limb 1 for calculating pension increases. The cross-reference to the Revaluation Order in Limb 2 is ancillary and does not override the RPI requirement. Therefore, pension increases must continue to be calculated by reference to RPI, not CPI, notwithstanding the statutory change in 2010. The 2.5% cap does not apply to the increases in question as Rule 1.11 does not incorporate the statutory cap for post-6 April 2005 accruals.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 949 (Ch)
Parties
Complainant and Respondent to Appeal: Robert Allan Carr; Respondent to Complaint and to Appeal: Thales Pension Trustees Ltd; Respondent to Complaint and Appellant: Thales UK Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Pensions Ombudsman Determination / High Court (chancery Division) Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Pension Indexation, Statutory Construction, Interpretation of Pension Scheme Rules, Retail Prices Index (rpi) Vs Consumer Prices Index (cpi), Revaluation Orders, Pension Schemes Act 1993, Pensions Act 1995
Pensions Law Trusts Law Pension Indexation Statutory Construction Interpretation of Pension Scheme Rules Retail Prices Index (rpi) Vs Consumer Prices Index (cpi) Revaluation Orders Pension Schemes Act 1993 +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Allan Carr

Complainant and Respondent to Appeal

Thales Pension Trustees Ltd

Respondent to Complaint and to Appeal

Thales UK Ltd

Respondent to Complaint and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Pensions Ombudsman Determination / High Court (chancery Division) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 1.11 of the 2000 Rules requires pension increases to be calculated by reference to RPI or CPI after the statutory change in 2010
  2. 2 Whether the 2.5% cap applies to increases under Rule 1.11

Ratio Decidendi

The natural and ordinary reading of Rule 1.11 gives primacy to the express reference to RPI in Limb 1 for calculating pension increases. The cross-reference to the Revaluation Order in Limb 2 is ancillary and does not override the RPI requirement. Therefore, pension increases must continue to be calculated by reference to RPI, not CPI, notwithstanding the statutory change in 2010. The 2.5% cap does not apply to the increases in question as Rule 1.11 does not incorporate the statutory cap for post-6 April 2005 accruals.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal by Thales UK Ltd is dismissed.
  • The Ombudsman's determination in favour of Mr Carr is upheld.