Dutton & Ors v FDR Ltd

Dutton & Ors v FDR Ltd

The Amended Rule 16(e) subject to the Proviso must be construed so that the pre-20 June 1991 element of a pension is increased annually by the greater of 5% RPI and 3%. This construction gives reasonable and practical effect, avoids technicality, and is consistent with the Proviso's protection of accrued rights. The Annual Approach is correct; the Modified Cumulative and Alternative Approaches are rejected as convoluted, impractical, and inconsistent with the scheme's language and purpose.

Parties
Claimant: Carol Dutton; Claimant: Annelyse Fournier; Claimant: Ty Miller; Claimant: Peter Motley; Claimant: Keith Rowling; Defendant: FDR Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Construction of Pension Scheme Rules, Amendment Power Provisos, Annual Pension Increases, Scheme Administration
Pensions Trusts Employment Construction of Pension Scheme Rules Amendment Power Provisos Annual Pension Increases Scheme Administration

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 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carol Dutton

Claimant

Annelyse Fournier

Claimant

Ty Miller

Claimant

Peter Motley

Claimant

Keith Rowling

Claimant

FDR Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should Amended Rule 16(e) subject to the Proviso be construed regarding increases to pensions in payment for pre-20 June 1991 service?
  2. 2 Is the Annual Approach, Alternative Approach, or Modified Cumulative Approach correct for calculating increases?

Ratio Decidendi

The Amended Rule 16(e) subject to the Proviso must be construed so that the pre-20 June 1991 element of a pension is increased annually by the greater of 5% RPI and 3%. This construction gives reasonable and practical effect, avoids technicality, and is consistent with the Proviso's protection of accrued rights. The Annual Approach is correct; the Modified Cumulative and Alternative Approaches are rejected as convoluted, impractical, and inconsistent with the scheme's language and purpose.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Amended Rule 16(e) subject to the Proviso is to be construed so that increases in pensions in payment accrued in respect of pre-20 June 1991 service are applied annually as the greater of 5% RPI and 3%.
  • Representation orders to be made pursuant to CPR 19.7(2).