APPEAL BY H AGAINST MYCSP AND OTHERS [2022] ScotCS CSIH_20 (26 April 2022)

APPEAL BY H AGAINST MYCSP AND OTHERS [2022] ScotCS CSIH_20 (26 April 2022)

The Pensions Ombudsman did not err in law in finding it reasonable for MyCSP to rely on Dr Groom's report, as there was no evidence of actual or apparent bias, and Dr Groom was independent at the time of his appointment. The Ombudsman was not required to consider apparent bias where it was not raised before him. The finding on apportionment was supported by the evidence, and there was no maladministration causing injustice. The appeal was refused on both grounds.

Citation
[2022] ScotCS CSIH_20
Parties
Appellant: H; First Respondent: MYCSP; Second Respondent: Scottish Prison Service; Third Respondent: Advocate General for Scotland, for and on behalf of the Cabinet Office
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Stated Case Under Section 151(4) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 / Final Appellate Judgment (court of Session, Inner House, Second Division)
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Maladministration, Pensions Ombudsman, Bias (actual and Apparent), Judicial Review of Ombudsman Decisions, Apportionment of Injury in Pension Schemes
Administrative Law Pensions Law Maladministration Pensions Ombudsman Bias (actual and Apparent) Judicial Review of Ombudsman Decisions Apportionment of Injury in Pension Schemes

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H

Appellant

MYCSP

First Respondent

Scottish Prison Service

Second Respondent

Advocate General for Scotland, for and on behalf of the Cabinet Office

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Stated Case Under Section 151(4) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 / Final Appellate Judgment (court of Session, Inner House, Second Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Pensions Ombudsman erred in law by finding it reasonable for MyCSP to rely on Dr Groom's report given his professional involvement with Health Management Limited (HM)
  2. 2 Whether the Ombudsman erred in law by not finding that the medical evidence and MyCSP's conduct amounted to maladministration after May 2018

Ratio Decidendi

The Pensions Ombudsman did not err in law in finding it reasonable for MyCSP to rely on Dr Groom's report, as there was no evidence of actual or apparent bias, and Dr Groom was independent at the time of his appointment. The Ombudsman was not required to consider apparent bias where it was not raised before him. The finding on apportionment was supported by the evidence, and there was no maladministration causing injustice. The appeal was refused on both grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused

Orders

  • Questions 6.3 and 6.4 answered in the negative
  • Appeal refused