British Airways Plc v Spencer & Ors (Trustees of the Airways Pension Scheme)

British Airways Plc v Spencer & Ors (Trustees of the Airways Pension Scheme)

The Deputy Master’s decision to refuse permission for any expert actuarial evidence was flawed due to inadequate consideration of pleaded issues and failure to properly apply the legal test under CPR 35.1. Where expert evidence is necessary or would assist the court in resolving pleaded issues, it should be admitted, subject to proportionality and case management discretion. The appeal is allowed and the discretion re-exercised to permit expert evidence on specified actuarial issues.

Parties
Appellant: British Airways PLC; Respondents: Paul Spencer and 11 Others (Present Trustees of the Airways Pension Scheme)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Ruling on Appeal Against Case Management Decision Regarding Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Deputy Master's decision set aside.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Trustee Duties, Case Management Discretion, Safe Harbour Principle, Predetermination, Actuarial Advice, Pension Scheme Amendments
Civil Procedure Trusts Law Pensions Law Admissibility of Expert Evidence Trustee Duties Case Management Discretion Safe Harbour Principle Predetermination +2 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

British Airways PLC

Appellant

Paul Spencer and 11 Others (Present Trustees of the Airways Pension Scheme)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Ruling on Appeal Against Case Management Decision Regarding Admissibility of Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether expert actuarial evidence should be admitted to resolve pleaded issues in the proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the Deputy Master applied the correct legal test for admissibility under CPR 35.1
  3. 3 Whether the Trustees' decisions were invalid due to predetermination or improper purpose

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy Master’s decision to refuse permission for any expert actuarial evidence was flawed due to inadequate consideration of pleaded issues and failure to properly apply the legal test under CPR 35.1. Where expert evidence is necessary or would assist the court in resolving pleaded issues, it should be admitted, subject to proportionality and case management discretion. The appeal is allowed and the discretion re-exercised to permit expert evidence on specified actuarial issues.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Deputy Master's decision set aside.

Orders

  • Permission granted for BA to adduce expert actuarial evidence on specified pleaded issues, subject to limitations and proportionality.
  • Parties to agree an order on scope and timetable for exchange of expert evidence; if not agreed, court will determine.