LILBURN, NOTE BY AGAINST (FIRST) AA, THE PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN AND (SECOND) CG, (FORMER) DEPUTY PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN AND CPLAS TRUSTEES LIMITED FOR AN ORDER ORDAINING THE PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN TO STATE A CASE FOR THE OPINION OF THE COURT [2018] ScotCS CSIH_2 (15 December 2017)

LILBURN, NOTE BY AGAINST (FIRST) AA, THE PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN AND (SECOND) CG, (FORMER) DEPUTY PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN AND CPLAS TRUSTEES LIMITED FOR AN ORDER ORDAINING THE PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN TO STATE A CASE FOR THE OPINION OF THE COURT [2018] ScotCS CSIH_2 (15 December 2017)

The application was refused because the applicant's failure to comply with the rules was not due to mistake, oversight, or excusable cause, but a conscious decision not to appeal. The significant delay amounted to mora, taciturnity, and acquiescence, prejudicing the respondents and undermining the administration of the pension scheme. The court's dispensing power under RCS 2.1 could not be exercised in these circumstances.

Citation
[2018] ScotCS CSIH_2
Parties
Noter: David Lilburn; First Respondent: AA, The Pensions Ombudsman; Second Respondent: CG, (former) Deputy Pensions Ombudsman; Third Respondent: CPLAS Trustees Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Order to State a Case (appeal on Point of Law) / Decision on Application to Ordain Pensions Ombudsman to State a Case, and Exercise of Dispensing Power Under RCS 2.1
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Appeals on Point of Law, Dispensing Power Under Court Rules, Delay and Procedural Default, Trustees' Duties, Pension Scheme Interpretation
Pensions Law Civil Procedure Appeals on Point of Law Dispensing Power Under Court Rules Delay and Procedural Default Trustees' Duties Pension Scheme Interpretation

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Lilburn

Noter

AA, The Pensions Ombudsman

First Respondent

CG, (former) Deputy Pensions Ombudsman

Second Respondent

CPLAS Trustees Limited

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Order to State a Case (appeal on Point of Law) / Decision on Application to Ordain Pensions Ombudsman to State a Case, and Exercise of Dispensing Power Under RCS 2.1

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its dispensing power under RCS 2.1 to allow a late application for a stated case from the Pensions Ombudsman
  2. 2 Whether the delay in seeking a stated case is excusable under the rules
  3. 3 Whether the second respondent erred in law in determining the pension entitlement

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the applicant's failure to comply with the rules was not due to mistake, oversight, or excusable cause, but a conscious decision not to appeal. The significant delay amounted to mora, taciturnity, and acquiescence, prejudicing the respondents and undermining the administration of the pension scheme. The court's dispensing power under RCS 2.1 could not be exercised in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Refusal to exercise dispensing power under RCS 2.1
  • Refusal to ordain the first respondent to state a case