British Telecommunications Plc v (1) BT Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd & Anor

British Telecommunications Plc v (1) BT Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd & Anor

The 2016 Rule requires an objective determination by the court as to whether RPI has become inappropriate for pension uprating; it does not confer a discretionary power on BT or the Trustee. Events prior to 5 April 2016 can be considered. The cumulative effect of the matters relied on by BT, including the clothing change, the freeze and de-designation of RPI, and its replacement in other contexts, do not render RPI inappropriate for the purposes of the 2016 Rule. For the 1993 Rule, only direct amendments to RPI invalidating its continuity for year-on-year comparison would trigger the gateway, and the clothing change does not meet this threshold. Pension increases for all Section C members...

Parties
Claimant: British Telecommunications PLC; First Defendant: BT Pension Scheme Trustees Limited; Second Defendant: Linda Bruce-Watt (Representative Beneficiary)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Pension Scheme Rules, Indexation of Pensions, Statutory Interpretation, Fiduciary Duties, Objective Vs Subjective Determination, Retail Prices Index (rpi), Consumer Prices Index (cpi), Scheme Amendments, Legacy Benefits
Pensions Trusts Contract Pension Scheme Rules Indexation of Pensions Statutory Interpretation Fiduciary Duties Objective Vs Subjective Determination +4 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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

British Telecommunications PLC

Claimant

BT Pension Scheme Trustees Limited

First Defendant

Linda Bruce-Watt (Representative Beneficiary)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2016 Rule confers a power or requires an objective determination as to RPI's appropriateness
  2. 2 Whether pre-2016 events can be considered in determining if RPI has become inappropriate
  3. 3 Whether the cumulative effect of events since 2010 renders RPI inappropriate under the 2016 Rule

Ratio Decidendi

The 2016 Rule requires an objective determination by the court as to whether RPI has become inappropriate for pension uprating; it does not confer a discretionary power on BT or the Trustee. Events prior to 5 April 2016 can be considered. The cumulative effect of the matters relied on by BT, including the clothing change, the freeze and de-designation of RPI, and its replacement in other contexts, do not render RPI inappropriate for the purposes of the 2016 Rule. For the 1993 Rule, only direct amendments to RPI invalidating its continuity for year-on-year comparison would trigger the gateway, and the clothing change does not meet this threshold. Pension increases for all Section C members...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that under the 2016 Rule, RPI has not become inappropriate for the purposes of pension uprating as at the date of judgment.
  • Declaration that the 2016 Rule applies to all Section C members who died or left service prior to 5 April 2016.