Ian Paul McKavney v Serco Group Plc & Ors

Ian Paul McKavney v Serco Group Plc & Ors

The appellant was not entitled to early payment of his SPLAS pension because his employment was transferred under TUPE, not terminated by redundancy or reorganisation as required by the scheme rules. The rules, properly construed in light of the PPR and the scheme's purpose, did not provide for immediate pension...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Ian Paul McKavney; Respondent: Serco Group Plc; Respondent: Magnox Limited; Respondent: Amec First Wheeler PLC; Respondent: The Trustees of the Serco Pension and Life Assurance Scheme; Respondent: Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 October 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Pensions Ombudsman
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Pension Scheme Rules, Protected Persons Regulations, TUPE Transfers and Pension Rights, Early Retirement Benefits, Redundancy and Reorganisation in Pension Context
Pensions Law Employment Law Interpretation of Pension Scheme Rules Protected Persons Regulations TUPE Transfers and Pension Rights Early Retirement Benefits Redundancy and Reorganisation in Pension Context

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Paul McKavney

Appellant

Serco Group Plc

Respondent

Magnox Limited

Respondent

Amec First Wheeler PLC

Respondent

The Trustees of the Serco Pension and Life Assurance Scheme

Respondent

Nuclear Decommissioning Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Pensions Ombudsman

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was entitled to early payment of deferred pension benefits under the Serco Pension and Life Assurance Scheme following transfer and redundancy
  2. 2 Proper construction of SPLAS Section F Sub-Rules 4.2.1.3 and 6.2.3.1
  3. 3 Interaction between scheme rules and the Electricity (Protected Persons) (England and Wales) Pension Regulations 1990 (PPR)

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not entitled to early payment of his SPLAS pension because his employment was transferred under TUPE, not terminated by redundancy or reorganisation as required by the scheme rules. The rules, properly construed in light of the PPR and the scheme's purpose, did not provide for immediate pension payment on transfer or subsequent redundancy from a non-associated employer. The Ombudsman’s determination was correct in law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed