Briggs & Ors v Gleeds (Head Office) & Ors

Briggs & Ors v Gleeds (Head Office) & Ors

Estoppel cannot be used to validate defective deeds that are not apparently valid on their face; no extrinsic contract arose except for 103 members who signed and returned the 30 March 2006 letter; only chartered quantity surveyors could be members after 1997; members are entitled to 4% pension increases from at least April 1983 regardless of deed validity; amendments to the scheme were not validly effected except as regards the 103 members who accepted the 2006 changes.

Parties
Claimant: Christopher James Briggs; Claimant: Thomas Victor Fincham; Claimant: Ross Philip Savage; Claimant: Stuart Senior; Claimant: Richard Peter Steer; Claimant: Pitmans Trustees Limited; Defendant: Gleeds (Head Office); Defendant: Gleeds (UK); Defendant: Ann Bytheway-Thomas; Defendant: James Matthew Perry
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim largely dismissed; only partial success for Gleeds regarding 103 members who signed 2006 letter.
Legal Topics
Validity of Deeds, Estoppel by Representation, Estoppel by Convention, Extrinsic Contract, Amendment of Pension Schemes, Accrued Benefits, Statutory Requirements for Deeds
Trusts Pensions Contract Estoppel Validity of Deeds Estoppel by Representation Estoppel by Convention Extrinsic Contract +3 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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher James Briggs

Claimant

Thomas Victor Fincham

Claimant

Ross Philip Savage

Claimant

Stuart Senior

Claimant

Richard Peter Steer

Claimant

Pitmans Trustees Limited

Claimant

Gleeds (Head Office)

Defendant

Gleeds (UK)

Defendant

Ann Bytheway-Thomas

Defendant

James Matthew Perry

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are members estopped from denying validity of defective deeds?
  2. 2 Can estoppel circumvent statutory requirements for execution of deeds?
  3. 3 Was there an extrinsic contract binding members to amended scheme terms?

Ratio Decidendi

Estoppel cannot be used to validate defective deeds that are not apparently valid on their face; no extrinsic contract arose except for 103 members who signed and returned the 30 March 2006 letter; only chartered quantity surveyors could be members after 1997; members are entitled to 4% pension increases from at least April 1983 regardless of deed validity; amendments to the scheme were not validly effected except as regards the 103 members who accepted the 2006 changes.

Court Disposition

Claim largely dismissed; only partial success for Gleeds regarding 103 members who signed 2006 letter.

Orders

  • None of the defective deeds take effect as intended.
  • 103 members who signed and returned the 30 March 2006 letter bound themselves to accept benefits in accordance with the 2006 Deed of Amendment.