Renishaw PLC v Ross Trustees Services Limited & Anor

Renishaw PLC v Ross Trustees Services Limited & Anor

Rule 6A(2) of the Renishaw Pension Fund trust deed contains a clear drafting mistake. The correct construction is that a member's Final Salary Pension is, if necessary, to be increased so as not to be less than the annual amount of pension that could be purchased with the Member's Pension Account, not the entire cash sum. This interpretation aligns with the scheme's purpose, avoids irrational results, and is consistent with historic administrative practice.

Parties
Claimant: Renishaw Plc; First Defendant: Ross Trustees Services Limited; Second Defendant: Louise Callanan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
claim allowed
Legal Topics
Construction of Pension Scheme Rules, Corrective Construction, Money Purchase Underpin, Representation Orders
Pensions Trusts Contract Construction of Pension Scheme Rules Corrective Construction Money Purchase Underpin Representation Orders

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Renishaw Plc

Claimant

Ross Trustees Services Limited

First Defendant

Louise Callanan

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of rule 6A(2) of the Renishaw Pension Fund trust deed
  2. 2 Whether the 'money purchase underpin' operates as a minimum annual pension or as a cash lump sum
  3. 3 Application of corrective construction principles to pension scheme rules

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 6A(2) of the Renishaw Pension Fund trust deed contains a clear drafting mistake. The correct construction is that a member's Final Salary Pension is, if necessary, to be increased so as not to be less than the annual amount of pension that could be purchased with the Member's Pension Account, not the entire cash sum. This interpretation aligns with the scheme's purpose, avoids irrational results, and is consistent with historic administrative practice.

Court Disposition

claim allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that rule 6A(2) is to be construed so that the Final Salary Pension is, if necessary, increased to not be less than the annual pension that could be purchased with the Member's Pension Account.
  • Confirmation that historic administrative practice is consistent with the correct construction.