Royal Mail Group Ltd v Evans & Ors [2013] EWHC 1572 (Ch) (11 June 2013)

Royal Mail Group Ltd v Evans & Ors [2013] EWHC 1572 (Ch) (11 June 2013)

Rule 19.2 (and Rule 17.2) should be construed as preserving for Relevant Members the entitlement to increases by reference to the statutory indexation applicable to public sector pensions (1971 Act Indexation), not to uncapped RPI. The reference to RPI in the rule is a drafting shorthand for the statutory indexation, and the operative provision is the continuation of the previous entitlement, not the creation of a new right to uncapped RPI. A literal reading would render the class of beneficiaries empty and produce an uncommercial result, contrary to the principles of construction.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1572 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Royal Mail Group Ltd; Defendant: Jonathan Evans; Defendant: Gerard Degaute; Defendant: David Grant Hargrave; Defendant: Brian Arthur Thomson; Defendant: David James Taylor; Defendant: John Duncan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim / Judgment After Hearing on Construction of Pension Scheme Rule
Outcome
Claim allowed. Declaration granted in favour of Royal Mail's construction.
Legal Topics
Construction of Pension Scheme Rules, Indexation of Pension Benefits, Interpretation of Trust Deeds, Grandfathering Provisions, Statutory Indexation, Business Common Sense in Contractual Interpretation
Pensions Law Trusts Law Contract Law Construction of Pension Scheme Rules Indexation of Pension Benefits Interpretation of Trust Deeds Grandfathering Provisions Statutory Indexation +1 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Mail Group Ltd

Claimant

Jonathan Evans

Defendant

Gerard Degaute

Defendant

David Grant Hargrave

Defendant

Brian Arthur Thomson

Defendant

David James Taylor

Defendant

John Duncan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim / Judgment After Hearing on Construction of Pension Scheme Rule

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct construction of Rule 19.2 of the Royal Mail Senior Executive Pension Plan?
  2. 2 Are Relevant Members entitled to pension increases in line with RPI or by reference to statutory indexation (1971 Act Indexation)?

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 19.2 (and Rule 17.2) should be construed as preserving for Relevant Members the entitlement to increases by reference to the statutory indexation applicable to public sector pensions (1971 Act Indexation), not to uncapped RPI. The reference to RPI in the rule is a drafting shorthand for the statutory indexation, and the operative provision is the continuation of the previous entitlement, not the creation of a new right to uncapped RPI. A literal reading would render the class of beneficiaries empty and produce an uncommercial result, contrary to the principles of construction.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Declaration granted in favour of Royal Mail's construction.

Orders

  • Rule 19.2 (and Rule 17.2) of the Executive Pension Plan is to be construed as entitling Relevant Members to increases by reference to the statutory indexation applicable to public sector pensions (1971 Act Indexation), not to uncapped RPI.
  • Representation orders made pursuant to CPR Rule 19.7(2) as sought in the Claim Form.