Baugniet v Capita Employee Benefits Ltd (t/a Teachers' Pensions) & Anor [2017] EWHC 501 (Ch) (20 March 2017)

Baugniet v Capita Employee Benefits Ltd (t/a Teachers' Pensions) & Anor [2017] EWHC 501 (Ch) (20 March 2017)

The Pensions Ombudsman erred in law by failing to properly consider and investigate whether the maladministration/negligence of TP caused financial loss to the appellant, and by conflating compensation for distress with compensation for financial loss. The matter must be remitted for reconsideration of the 'but for' causation complaint and appropriate remedy for financial loss, as well as for reassessment of compensation for distress and inconvenience, taking into account further maladministration.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 501 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant: Dr William Baugniet; First Respondent: Capita Employee Benefits Limited (T/A Teachers' Pensions); Second Respondent: The Department for Education
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Pensions Ombudsman Determination / High Court (chancery Division) Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted to the Pensions Ombudsman for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Maladministration, Negligence, Compensation for Distress and Inconvenience, Financial Loss From Pension Transfer, Informed Consent, Legitimate Expectation, Application of Statutory Regulations, Remedies for Breach of Duty
Pensions Law Administrative Law Contract Law Tort (negligence) Maladministration Negligence Compensation for Distress and Inconvenience Financial Loss From Pension Transfer +4 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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr William Baugniet

Appellant

Capita Employee Benefits Limited (T/A Teachers' Pensions)

First Respondent

The Department for Education

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Pensions Ombudsman Determination / High Court (chancery Division) Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether maladministration by the pension scheme administrator (TP) caused financial loss to the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had a legal right to informed consent or a legitimate expectation regarding the service credit
  3. 3 Whether the Pensions Ombudsman erred in law in failing to address the 'but for' causation argument and the distinction between maladministration causing financial loss and that not causing financial loss

Ratio Decidendi

The Pensions Ombudsman erred in law by failing to properly consider and investigate whether the maladministration/negligence of TP caused financial loss to the appellant, and by conflating compensation for distress with compensation for financial loss. The matter must be remitted for reconsideration of the 'but for' causation complaint and appropriate remedy for financial loss, as well as for reassessment of compensation for distress and inconvenience, taking into account further maladministration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted to the Pensions Ombudsman for reconsideration.

Orders

  • Remit to the Pensions Ombudsman for reconsideration of the complaint as one of negligence causing financial loss and to determine the appropriate remedy.
  • Reconsider the extent of TP's maladministration and the appropriate compensation for distress and inconvenience, including further maladministration discovered post-determination.