Spreadborough v The Pensions Ombudsman & Anor [2004] EWHC 27 (Ch) (21 January 2004)

Spreadborough v The Pensions Ombudsman & Anor [2004] EWHC 27 (Ch) (21 January 2004)

The Pensions Ombudsman erred in law by treating the date of diagnosis as the 'appropriate date' for entitlement to preserved benefits, rather than the date of onset of permanent incapacity, and by incorrectly stating that retrospective payment was not permitted under the Regulations.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 27 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant: Keith Spreadborough; First Respondent: The Pensions Ombudsman; Second Respondent: Wandsworth London Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Pensions Ombudsman Decision
Outcome
Decision of the Pensions Ombudsman set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Local Government Pension Scheme, Ill Health Retirement, Maladministration, Retrospective Benefits
Pensions Administrative Law Local Government Pension Scheme Ill Health Retirement Maladministration Retrospective Benefits

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keith Spreadborough

Appellant

The Pensions Ombudsman

First Respondent

Wandsworth London Borough Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Pensions Ombudsman Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Pensions Ombudsman erred in law regarding the date of entitlement to preserved benefits under Regulation D11 of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 1995
  2. 2 Whether retrospective payment of preserved benefits is permitted under the Regulations
  3. 3 Whether medical evidence supports an earlier date of permanent incapacity

Ratio Decidendi

The Pensions Ombudsman erred in law by treating the date of diagnosis as the 'appropriate date' for entitlement to preserved benefits, rather than the date of onset of permanent incapacity, and by incorrectly stating that retrospective payment was not permitted under the Regulations.

Court Disposition

Decision of the Pensions Ombudsman set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration.

Orders

  • Matter remitted to the Pensions Ombudsman for determination in accordance with the guidance provided in this judgment.