Pollock v Reed

Pollock v Reed

The scheme actuary, when certifying under regulation 12(3) of the 1991 Regulations, is not required and is not permitted to take into account the security of benefits or the likelihood of their payment in the transferring or receiving scheme. The comparison is between the headline rights and transfer credits as defined in the regulations. This remains the case even if the transferring scheme is in winding up; the rights for comparison are not reduced by the scheme's asset insufficiency.

Parties
Claimant: Derek John Pollock; Claimant: Roger Stephen Hoad; Claimant: John Fulton Irwin; Claimant: Independent Trustee Services Limited; Claimant: Roger Charles Abraham; Claimant: James Billinghurst; Claimant: Catherine Merlane; Defendant: Colin Reed; Defendant: Halcrow Group Limited; Defendant: The Board of the Pension Protection Fund; Defendant: The Pensions Regulator
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (pensions) / Judgment After Expedited Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed on Issues 1(a) and 1(b); Transaction cannot proceed as proposed.
Legal Topics
Bulk Transfer of Pension Rights, Actuarial Certification, Trustee Duties, Interpretation of Pension Regulations
Pensions Law Trust Law Bulk Transfer of Pension Rights Actuarial Certification Trustee Duties Interpretation of Pension Regulations

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Derek John Pollock

Claimant

Roger Stephen Hoad

Claimant

John Fulton Irwin

Claimant

Independent Trustee Services Limited

Claimant

Roger Charles Abraham

Claimant

James Billinghurst

Claimant

Catherine Merlane

Claimant

Colin Reed

Defendant

Halcrow Group Limited

Defendant

The Board of the Pension Protection Fund

Defendant

The Pensions Regulator

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (pensions) / Judgment After Expedited Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether, for a bulk transfer of pension rights without member consent, the scheme actuary can or must take into account the security of benefits in the transferring and receiving schemes when certifying that transfer credits are 'broadly no less favourable' than rights to be transferred under regulation 12(3) of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Preservation of Benefit) Regulations 1991.
  2. 2 Whether the answer is different if the transferring scheme is in winding up.

Ratio Decidendi

The scheme actuary, when certifying under regulation 12(3) of the 1991 Regulations, is not required and is not permitted to take into account the security of benefits or the likelihood of their payment in the transferring or receiving scheme. The comparison is between the headline rights and transfer credits as defined in the regulations. This remains the case even if the transferring scheme is in winding up; the rights for comparison are not reduced by the scheme's asset insufficiency.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed on Issues 1(a) and 1(b); Transaction cannot proceed as proposed.

Orders

  • No approval granted for the Transaction under the current legal framework.
  • Further submissions to be heard on confidentiality of the judgment.