Stena Line Ltd v Merchant Navy Ratings Pension Fund Trustees Ltd & Anor

Stena Line Ltd v Merchant Navy Ratings Pension Fund Trustees Ltd & Anor

The Court held that the power of amendment in the trust deed is not subject to an implied restriction requiring the reintroduction of the veto provision before imposing new deficit repair obligations on non-consenting employers. The removal of the veto provision in 2001 was valid and effective, and the trust deed and rules, interpreted objectively and in light of subsequent circumstances and legislative changes, do not support the implication of such a restriction. The appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Stena Line Limited; First Respondent: Merchant Navy Ratings Pension Fund Trustees Limited; Second Respondent: P & O Ferries Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Pension Scheme Rules, Implied Terms, Power of Amendment in Trust Deeds
Trusts Pensions Contract Law Interpretation of Pension Scheme Rules Implied Terms Power of Amendment in Trust Deeds

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stena Line Limited

Appellant

Merchant Navy Ratings Pension Fund Trustees Limited

First Respondent

P & O Ferries Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the power of amendment in the trust deed is subject to an implied restriction requiring reintroduction of a veto provision before imposing new deficit repair obligations on non-consenting employers
  2. 2 Whether, on true construction, the scheme could be forced into winding up if affected employers do not consent to a new deficit repair scheme

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the power of amendment in the trust deed is not subject to an implied restriction requiring the reintroduction of the veto provision before imposing new deficit repair obligations on non-consenting employers. The removal of the veto provision in 2001 was valid and effective, and the trust deed and rules, interpreted objectively and in light of subsequent circumstances and legislative changes, do not support the implication of such a restriction. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.