Danks & Ors v Qinetiq Holdings Ltd & Anor

Danks & Ors v Qinetiq Holdings Ltd & Anor

On the true construction of the Scheme rules, the Trustees’ power to select CPI instead of RPI as the cost of living index is not a detrimental modification of subsisting rights under sections 67 to 67I of the Pensions Act 1995, as members’ entitlements to increases are subject to the Trustees’ discretion to select the index at the time of calculation, and the Scheme permits different indices for different purposes.

Parties
Claimant: Caroline Linda Ann Danks; Claimant: Andrew Paul Crooks; Claimant: Gary Whiteside; Claimant: Carolan Dobson; Claimant: Gary Lee Johnson; Claimant: Christopher Noel Hutchings; Claimant: Sarah Louise Kenny; Claimant: Catherine Ann O’Carroll; Defendant: QinetiQ Holdings Limited; Defendant: Martin Shaun Pocock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; representation order granted.
Legal Topics
Modification of Pension Schemes, Statutory Revaluation, Index Selection (rpi/cpi), Subsisting Rights, Representation Orders
Pensions Trusts Employment Modification of Pension Schemes Statutory Revaluation Index Selection (rpi/cpi) Subsisting Rights Representation Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caroline Linda Ann Danks

Claimant

Andrew Paul Crooks

Claimant

Gary Whiteside

Claimant

Carolan Dobson

Claimant

Gary Lee Johnson

Claimant

Christopher Noel Hutchings

Claimant

Sarah Louise Kenny

Claimant

Catherine Ann O’Carroll

Claimant

QinetiQ Holdings Limited

Defendant

Martin Shaun Pocock

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Trustees’ selection of CPI instead of RPI as cost of living index is potentially voidable under sections 67 to 67I of the Pensions Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether Trustees can apply different indices for different purposes under the Scheme
  3. 3 Whether Mr Pocock should be appointed as representative beneficiary

Ratio Decidendi

On the true construction of the Scheme rules, the Trustees’ power to select CPI instead of RPI as the cost of living index is not a detrimental modification of subsisting rights under sections 67 to 67I of the Pensions Act 1995, as members’ entitlements to increases are subject to the Trustees’ discretion to select the index at the time of calculation, and the Scheme permits different indices for different purposes.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; representation order granted.

Orders

  • Trustees’ selection of CPI as index is not voidable under sections 67 to 67I of the Pensions Act 1995.
  • Trustees may apply different indices for different purposes under the Scheme.