Downe v Universities Superannaution Scheme (USS) & Anor

Downe v Universities Superannaution Scheme (USS) & Anor

The Pensions Ombudsman erred in law by focusing on who instigated the termination (instance/insistence/coercion) rather than properly applying the USS Rules' test for redundancy, which requires factual findings on whether the employer's requirements for work of a particular kind had ceased or diminished and whether the termination was wholly or mainly attributable to that. The Compromise Agreement's reference to redundancy pay was not determinative.

Parties
Appellant: Gail Downe; First Respondent: Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS); Second Respondent: The Society of College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Pension Appeal / Appeal From Pensions Ombudsman to High Court
Outcome
appeal allowed in part, remitted to Ombudsman
Legal Topics
Redundancy, Early Retirement, Pension Scheme Rules, Compromise Agreements, Statutory Interpretation
Pensions Employment Law Redundancy Early Retirement Pension Scheme Rules Compromise Agreements Statutory Interpretation

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gail Downe

Appellant

Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS)

First Respondent

The Society of College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Pension Appeal / Appeal From Pensions Ombudsman to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the termination of Ms Downe's employment was 'by reason of redundancy' within the meaning of Rule 11.2.1 of the USS Rules
  2. 2 Whether the Pensions Ombudsman applied the correct legal test for redundancy under the USS Rules
  3. 3 Whether the Compromise Agreement established redundancy as the reason for termination

Ratio Decidendi

The Pensions Ombudsman erred in law by focusing on who instigated the termination (instance/insistence/coercion) rather than properly applying the USS Rules' test for redundancy, which requires factual findings on whether the employer's requirements for work of a particular kind had ceased or diminished and whether the termination was wholly or mainly attributable to that. The Compromise Agreement's reference to redundancy pay was not determinative.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part, remitted to Ombudsman

Orders

  • Ms Downe's appeal is allowed on ground (a) (misapplication of redundancy test).
  • The complaint is remitted to the Pensions Ombudsman for reconsideration applying the correct legal test.