header-logo header-logo

15 July 2020
Issue: 7895 / Categories: Legal News , Pensions
printer mail-detail

Closing the pensions window

The Barber window closed for Safeway pensioners when the Pensions Act took force, the Court of Appeal has held unanimously

The long-running case concerned the date on which the Safeway occupational pension scheme for employees was equalised at 65 years old for both women and men (it was previously 60 for women and 65 for men).

The Barber window refers to the 1990 case of Barber v Guardian, after which all occupational pension schemes were required to have equal retirement ages for men and women. Schemes were told to set a date for levelling up, and were to grant both sexes the more generous policy during the period between the judgment and that date (the Barber window).

Safeway made a written announcement that, from December 1991, the pension age for both sexes was 65. However, it did not issue a written deed to implement the change until May 1996. One issue in Safeway v Newton & Safeway Pension Trustees [2020] EWCA Civ 689 was whether the benefits were equalised in December 1991 or May 1996.

On referral to Luxembourg, however, the European Court of Justice ruled the Barber window did not close until a change in domestic law brought about enforceable rights and remedies.

Handing down judgment this week, the Court of Appeal held s 62 of the Pensions Act 1995, which came into force on 1 January 1996, had effectively closed the Barber window from that date.

Giving the lead judgment, Lord Justice Floyd said: ‘Even if EU law requires the scheme itself to be modified, s 62 has this effect.

‘It cannot make a difference that the modifications are initiated by Parliament rather than the administrators of the scheme… The closure of the Barber window is defined by the point at which domestic law provides legally enforceable and certain rights for members to enforce.’

Issue: 7895 / Categories: Legal News , Pensions
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll