Punter Southall Governance Services Ltd v Benge & Anor [2022] EWHC 193 (Ch) (01 February 2022)

Punter Southall Governance Services Ltd v Benge & Anor [2022] EWHC 193 (Ch) (01 February 2022)

The trustee's decision to pay the death benefit to the second defendant was one a reasonable body of trustees, correctly instructed as to the scheme rules, could properly have made on the evidence; the decision was not vitiated by conflict of interest, and the process was fair and rational. The court therefore approves the trustee's decision.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 193 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Punter Southall Governance Services Limited; First Defendant: Nigel J Benge; Second Defendant: Kay Margaret Barrett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (trustee Application for Court Approval) / Judgment on Application for Approval of Trustee Decision
Outcome
Claim approved; court grants relief sought by claimant trustee.
Legal Topics
Trustee Decision Making, Conflict of Interest, Pension Scheme Death Benefits, Dependency Under Pension Rules, Court Approval of Trustee Actions
Trusts and Estates Pensions Law Trustee Decision Making Conflict of Interest Pension Scheme Death Benefits Dependency Under Pension Rules Court Approval of Trustee Actions

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Punter Southall Governance Services Limited

Claimant

Nigel J Benge

First Defendant

Kay Margaret Barrett

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (trustee Application for Court Approval) / Judgment on Application for Approval of Trustee Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trustee's decision to pay a death benefit to the second defendant was one a reasonable body of trustees could properly have made under the scheme rules
  2. 2 Whether the decision was vitiated by any conflict of interest
  3. 3 Whether the trustees acted properly in refusing to reconsider the decision or in pursuing the application

Ratio Decidendi

The trustee's decision to pay the death benefit to the second defendant was one a reasonable body of trustees, correctly instructed as to the scheme rules, could properly have made on the evidence; the decision was not vitiated by conflict of interest, and the process was fair and rational. The court therefore approves the trustee's decision.

Court Disposition

Claim approved; court grants relief sought by claimant trustee.

Orders

  • Court approves the trustee's decision to pay the death benefit from the scheme assets to the second defendant.
  • No order for reconsideration or further investigation required.