Bridge Trustees Ltd v Noel Penny (Turbines) Ltd.

Bridge Trustees Ltd v Noel Penny (Turbines) Ltd.

The court held that section 41 of the Trustee Act 1925 does not apply because the Defendant is not a trustee in whom property is vested, but the court has inherent jurisdiction to appoint the Claimant to exercise the fiduciary power to direct the distribution of the pension scheme surplus, as the Defendant is...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Bridge Trustees Limited; Defendant: Noel Penny (Turbines) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Fiduciary Powers, Appointment of Trustee, Pension Scheme Surplus, Court's Inherent Jurisdiction
Trusts Pensions Insolvency Fiduciary Powers Appointment of Trustee Pension Scheme Surplus Court's Inherent Jurisdiction

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bridge Trustees Limited

Claimant

Noel Penny (Turbines) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can appoint the Claimant to exercise the power to distribute surplus pension scheme assets in place of the Defendant
  2. 2 Whether section 41 of the Trustee Act 1925 applies to the Defendant as a donee of a fiduciary power
  3. 3 Whether the court's inherent jurisdiction allows appointment of a new donee of a fiduciary power

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 41 of the Trustee Act 1925 does not apply because the Defendant is not a trustee in whom property is vested, but the court has inherent jurisdiction to appoint the Claimant to exercise the fiduciary power to direct the distribution of the pension scheme surplus, as the Defendant is unwilling and unsuitable to act.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • The Claimant is appointed in place of the Defendant to exercise the power under Rule 9 to direct the destination of the pension scheme surplus.