header-logo header-logo

22 June 2020
Issue: 7892 / Categories: Legal News , Pensions
printer mail-detail

Pensions cap ruled unlawful

The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) pensions cap is unlawful on the grounds of age discrimination, the High Court has held in a landmark case

The case, R (Hughes & Ors) v Board of the PPF [2020] EWHC 1598 (Admin), was brought by 25 claimants including the British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) on behalf of pilots from BMI and Monarch Airlines, whose company pensions had been transferred to the PPF owing to insolvency or inability to meet pension liabilities.

The claimants challenged the PPF’s policy of capping payouts for those below pensionable age at the date of assessment to 90% of the benefits fixed by the scheme. PPF also imposed a ceiling on the total amount payable that varied with age (£41,461 for 65-year-olds and tapering down) and applied the 90% cap to that ceiling.

One of the claimants, Paul Hughes, retired at 57 on a pension of £66,245. Two years later, his former employer became insolvent and the PPF reduced his pension by 75% to £17,481. The claimants also pointed to the European Court of Justice ruling last year, in Hampshire v Board of the PPF (Case C-17/17), that a member state must guarantee that retirees receive at least 50% of their expected pension after the insolvency of their former employer.

Mr Justice Lewis, handing down judgment, held the claimants had been treated less favourably due to their age, ordered that the cap be disapplied and said the claimants could seek to recover arrears for a period of six years.

Kate Allass, partner, and Sally Mantell, associate, of Farrer & Co, who acted for BALPA, said: ‘The current position is that the PPF should have paid, and should still be paying, compensation equivalent to 90% of affected members’ annual pensions.’

Lewis J also confirmed the principle outlined in Hampshire. Allass and Mantell said: ‘This means that the system would need to ensure that the calculations can be adjusted if a member is in fact at risk of receiving less than 50%. The “one-off” initial calculation is unlawful to the extent that it results in members falling below this threshold.

‘In light of the decision, the PPF will now need to rework its methods of calculating compensation due to members to ensure it is in compliance with the law.

‘The decision has wide and significant implications for all employees whose pension schemes are transferred to the PPF on insolvency, not only those represented by Farrer & Co in this judicial review. The disapplication of the cap means that many are now in line to receive payments much closer to their contracted pension benefits. We await the PPF’s proposals regarding the implementation of this decision.’

Issue: 7892 / Categories: Legal News , Pensions
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll