Shannan v Viavi Solutions UK Ltd & Ors

Shannan v Viavi Solutions UK Ltd & Ors

The Court found that the conduct and knowledge of the relevant parties, including correspondence and the Trustees’ Annual Report, established that the requisite agreement and consent for substitution of Management as Principal Employer under Rule 10.10 was reached by September 1999 at the latest, and the 1999 Deed was validly executed. The subsequent documentation and Recital (E) did not undermine this conclusion. The Duomatic principle did not apply to impute Viavi’s consent, but the facts evidenced actual agreement and consent.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Ian Shannan; Claimant/respondent: Eric Roger Hall; Claimant/respondent: William Kim Quillin; Defendant/appellant: Viavi Solutions UK Limited; Defendant/respondent: Malcolm Froude; Defendant/respondent: Bond Pearce; Defendant/respondent: Bond Pearce LLP; Defendant/respondent: Aon Consulting Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Substitution of Principal Employer, Validity of Pension Scheme Amendments, Corporate Authority, Retrospective Deeds, Presumption of Regularity, Duomatic Principle
Pensions Trusts and Equity Company Law Substitution of Principal Employer Validity of Pension Scheme Amendments Corporate Authority Retrospective Deeds Presumption of Regularity +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Shannan

Claimant/respondent

Eric Roger Hall

Claimant/respondent

William Kim Quillin

Claimant/respondent

Viavi Solutions UK Limited

Defendant/appellant

Malcolm Froude

Defendant/respondent

Bond Pearce

Defendant/respondent

Bond Pearce LLP

Defendant/respondent

Aon Consulting Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1999 Deed was validly executed to substitute the Principal Employer under the Scheme
  2. 2 Whether the requisite agreement and consent for substitution under Rule 10.10 was reached prior to or by execution of the 1999 Deed
  3. 3 Whether the Duomatic principle or presumption of regularity applied to impute consent or validate the substitution

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the conduct and knowledge of the relevant parties, including correspondence and the Trustees’ Annual Report, established that the requisite agreement and consent for substitution of Management as Principal Employer under Rule 10.10 was reached by September 1999 at the latest, and the 1999 Deed was validly executed. The subsequent documentation and Recital (E) did not undermine this conclusion. The Duomatic principle did not apply to impute Viavi’s consent, but the facts evidenced actual agreement and consent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal by Viavi Solutions UK Limited is dismissed.
  • The 1999 Deed is valid and effective to substitute Management as Principal Employer under the Scheme.