British Telecommunications Plc v BT Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd & Anor

British Telecommunications Plc v BT Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd & Anor

The question of whether RPI has become inappropriate under Rule 10.2 is an objective one for the Court, not for BT or the Trustees. The rule sets out conditions precedent, not a discretionary power. The 2016 Deed of Amendment did not reset the appropriateness of RPI. Events before 2002 are only relevant if they form part of the factual matrix, not based on the parties’ knowledge. The 'clothing change', 'freeze', and 'de-designation' of RPI, whether individually or cumulatively, did not render RPI inappropriate for the purposes of the Scheme. The judge’s evaluative judgment was not wrong in law or principle.

Parties
Appellant: British Telecommunications PLC; First Respondent: BT Pension Scheme Trustees Limited; Second Respondent: Linda Bruce-Watt (Representative Beneficiary)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Pension Scheme Rules, Indexation of Pensions, Objective Vs Subjective Decision Making, Statutory Construction, Judicial Review Standards
Pensions Law Trust Law Contract Law Interpretation of Pension Scheme Rules Indexation of Pensions Objective Vs Subjective Decision Making Statutory Construction Judicial Review Standards

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 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

British Telecommunications PLC

Appellant

BT Pension Scheme Trustees Limited

First Respondent

Linda Bruce-Watt (Representative Beneficiary)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who determines if RPI has become inappropriate under Rule 10.2 of the BT Pension Scheme?
  2. 2 Is the test for 'becomes inappropriate' objective or subjective?
  3. 3 Does the 2016 Deed of Amendment 'reset the clock' for appropriateness of RPI?

Ratio Decidendi

The question of whether RPI has become inappropriate under Rule 10.2 is an objective one for the Court, not for BT or the Trustees. The rule sets out conditions precedent, not a discretionary power. The 2016 Deed of Amendment did not reset the appropriateness of RPI. Events before 2002 are only relevant if they form part of the factual matrix, not based on the parties’ knowledge. The 'clothing change', 'freeze', and 'de-designation' of RPI, whether individually or cumulatively, did not render RPI inappropriate for the purposes of the Scheme. The judge’s evaluative judgment was not wrong in law or principle.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal by British Telecommunications PLC is dismissed.
  • The application to admit new evidence by BT is refused.