Ewing v Stockham Value Ltd [2000] NICA 30 (4 February 2000)
Arthur Cox were not administrators within the meaning of the regulations; the demand letter did not constitute maladministration; the respondent suffered no injustice as she knew she was not entitled to the benefits; the Ombudsman’s award cannot stand.
- Citation
- [2000] NICA 30
- Parties
- Complainant/respondent: Alma Kearney Ewing; Respondent/appellant: The Trustees of the Stockham Valve Limited Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme; Respondent/appellant: Arthur Cox Northern Ireland (A Firm)
- Jurisdiction
- Northern Ireland
- Judgment Date
- 04 February 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Maladministration, Compensation for Distress, Jurisdiction of Pensions Ombudsman
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alma Kearney Ewing
Complainant/respondent
The Trustees of the Stockham Valve Limited Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme
Respondent/appellant
Arthur Cox Northern Ireland (A Firm)
Respondent/appellant
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Arthur Cox were administrators under the scheme and within Ombudsman jurisdiction
- 2 Whether the demand letter constituted maladministration
- 3 Whether maladministration caused injustice to the respondent
Ratio Decidendi
Arthur Cox were not administrators within the meaning of the regulations; the demand letter did not constitute maladministration; the respondent suffered no injustice as she knew she was not entitled to the benefits; the Ombudsman’s award cannot stand.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Ombudsman’s award set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment