ALEXANDER & Ors AS TRUSTEES OF THE SCOTTISH SOLICITORS STAFF PENSION FUND v PATTISON & SIM & Ors , AS SUCH PARTNERS AND AS INDIVIDUALS [2015] ScotCS CSIH_96 (30 December 2015)

ALEXANDER & Ors AS TRUSTEES OF THE SCOTTISH SOLICITORS STAFF PENSION FUND v PATTISON & SIM & Ors , AS SUCH PARTNERS AND AS INDIVIDUALS [2015] ScotCS CSIH_96 (30 December 2015)

The presumption of regularity applies to the amendment procedures of the pension fund; the burden of proof lies on challengers to show procedures were not followed. Available documentation and practice support validity of amendments. Trustees are not required to prove procedural compliance for historic amendments; challenge must be substantiated by defenders.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSIH_96
Parties
Pursuers and Respondents: Susan Alexander, Simon Brown, Audrey Hendry, Robert Henderson and Brenda Scott as Trustees of the Scottish Solicitors Staff Pension Fund; Defenders and Reclaimers: Pattison & Sim and David John Howat and Bridget Mary McLaren, the partners thereof, as such partners and as individuals
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Lord Ordinary's Decree
Outcome
reclaiming motion refused
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pension Scheme Rules, Presumption of Regularity, Onus of Proof, Approbate and Reprobate
Trusts Pensions Commercial Law Amendment of Pension Scheme Rules Presumption of Regularity Onus of Proof Approbate and Reprobate

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Alexander, Simon Brown, Audrey Hendry, Robert Henderson and Brenda Scott as Trustees of the Scottish Solicitors Staff Pension Fund

Pursuers and Respondents

Pattison & Sim and David John Howat and Bridget Mary McLaren, the partners thereof, as such partners and as individuals

Defenders and Reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Lord Ordinary's Decree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amendments to pension fund rules were validly effected
  2. 2 Whether the presumption omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta applies to pension scheme amendments
  3. 3 Where the burden of proof lies regarding procedural regularity of amendments

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption of regularity applies to the amendment procedures of the pension fund; the burden of proof lies on challengers to show procedures were not followed. Available documentation and practice support validity of amendments. Trustees are not required to prove procedural compliance for historic amendments; challenge must be substantiated by defenders.

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion refused

Orders

  • Action remitted to Lord Ordinary to proceed as accords due to ongoing dispute over amount due