header-logo header-logo

04 August 2011
Issue: 7477 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Ruling on pensions

The Supreme Court has delivered an important ruling on the dividing line between defined benefit and defined contribution occupational pension schemes

Defined benefit schemes, such as final salary schemes, pay a return based on salary and require the employer to bear the risk of the investment falling short. Defined contribution schemes, also called money purchase schemes, pay a return related to contributions made by employee and employer.

In Houldsworth v Bridge Trustees [2011] UKSC 42, the justices held that defined contribution schemes can include hybrid schemes where there is a guarantee on return, and where the scheme uses internal annuitisation to provide pensions from the scheme itself rather than to purchase annuities from an insurer.

Zoe Lynch, partner at Sacker & Partners, said the decision “clarifies confusion around what is a defined contribution scheme, which can have a big impact on members’ rights”.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), which intervened in the case, said the decision would place some schemes outside the scope of existing legislation. It said it would introduce retrospective legislation to clarify that benefits cannot be regarded as money purchase benefits if it is possible for a funding deficit to arise.

Stephanie Hawthorne, editor of Pensions World, said: “This is a complex and important decision concerning the definition of money purchase benefits where the underlying legislation going back to the 1980s was poorly drafted.

“Money purchase benefits fall outside the reach of some pension scheme protection legislation including the Pension Protection Fund, employer debt provisions and the statutory priority order on winding up. Relatively few schemes will be affected by this decision as few schemes offer similar benefits to those in question but the DWP has responded to the ruling by announcing it will introduce retrospective changes to the legislation, so protecting scheme members.”

“There could be an amendment to the Pensions Bill currently going through parliament widening the scope of member protection.”

Issue: 7477 / Categories: Legal News
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