what's in the news

Mr Weale was a member of the Cubic pension scheme. The Scheme rules provided that the trustees and company had to consent first of all to whether a member could take his pension early and, if so, whether or not to apply an actuarial reduction to a pension received once a member became 60.

Mr Weale claimed that under the scheme from which he transferred his benefits in 1997, he had an absolute right to take a pension unreduced on turning 60 and that, when he agreed to join the Cubic Scheme, he received documentation saying that his benefits would be of the same overall value and that there would be no reduction on retirement from age 60. 

An announcement and a summary of benefits were sent to Mr Weale on the same date. The stated intention in the announcement was that benefits would be provided in the Cubic Scheme equal to the transferring scheme. The summary stated that company and trustee consent was needed for early retirement but that retirement after 60 for transferring employees would be paid without reduction. However, the summary also stated that it was not a full description of the Scheme, which could be found in the Scheme rules (which later introduced a need for consent for benefits to be paid after 60 without reduction), and the form of election Mr Weale signed agreeing to transfer his benefits into the Scheme stated that he understood that the summary was subject to the Scheme rules.

Shortly after Mr Weale’s 60th birthday the trustees and company granted consent but on the basis that Mr Weale’s pension would be reduced in accordance with the Scheme rules given the then financial position of the Scheme and the additional strain which an unreduced pension would place on the Scheme.

Mr Weale complained to the trustees and, in due course, to the Pensions Ombudsman. The Ombudsman held on the basis of evidence that Mr Weale transferred into the Scheme on the basis that his benefits would be as they were under the old scheme and that he had an absolute right to an unreduced pension in relation to his service prior to the date of the inception of the Cubic Scheme.

The trustees and company appealed in the High Court.  Mr Justice Field held that an ombudsman is wrong in law to look at some documents issued at a time of entering the scheme in isolation from the others especially where the form of election and the summary stated that the benefits to be provided were effectively set out in the subsequent Scheme rules.

Reading all of the documents together, the judge held that there was no clear representation to Mr Weale that he would be entitled to benefits equal to the benefits in his old scheme. Such a representation would be needed to establish an estoppel or contract that could prevent the company and trustees relying on the Scheme rules. In addition, Mr Weale could not show a further requirement for estoppel, namely detrimental reliance on the representation, because he had the benefit of accruing benefits in the Cubic Scheme that he would not have accrued if he had not transferred his benefits. 

Comment:

The decision demonstrates that the courts will apply the requirements of law to what may seem a matter of fact. In this case it was not enough to rely on representations made, the member also needed to establish how those representations created an estoppel.

The Ombudsman must approach cases in the same way as the courts would and has no jurisdiction to do otherwise. 

The courts interpret representations to members in the context of all materials and representations made at the time and this case reinforces that it is essential for members and schemes to keep full and proper evidence of all changes and decisions that they make.

For further information relating to pensions, please visit the Pitmans Pensions website or contact our team direct.

Lee Colgate
lcolgate@pitmans.com
+44 (0)20 7634 4636

Corporate Transactions: Hot Topics (Event Full – New Date Available: 7th April)

With Andrew Peddie and Adam Dowdney

A summary of the current live issues arising on corporate transactions which will include: Read the rest of this entry »

Corporate Transactions: Hot Topics (New Date Added)

With Andrew Peddie and Adam Dowdney

A summary of the current live issues arising on corporate transactions which will include: Read the rest of this entry »

Creditors – Getting to the Top of the Pile!

With Nicola Kirk and Suzanne Brooker

How to ensure you are best placed to receive payment for goods and/or services supplied in the current market. Suzanne Brooker and Nicola Kirk discuss some of the key issues to improve the prospects of getting paid including: Read the rest of this entry »

TMA (UK) Reading is delighted to welcome Peter Kubik, Partner at UHY Hacker Young and James Felt, Solicitor at Pitmans SK Sport and Entertainment LLP.  This seminar focuses on effective management of a football club and will discuss the crucial role that turnaround specialists UHY played during Portsmouth FC’s Administration process in early 2010. Read the rest of this entry »

Contracts for Cloud Computing Services: What’s Really Happening Out There?

This event is sponsored by Pitmans Solicitors Read the rest of this entry »

Effective, Efficient & Legal Performance Management: Best Practice Workshop.

Join Richard Devall of Pitmans Solicitors and Tony Price of Vistage International in an interactive workshop looking at the importance of performance management to your business from both a legal and leadership perspective.

How do you optimise behaviour and enhance business results whilst complying with the law?

Discover how on Wednesday 19th January 2011.

Register your place for the Performance Management Workshop

The Law Commission has today published a consultation on the future of pre-nuptial agreements, seeking views from the public on a range of potential options for reforming the law of pre-nuptial, post-nuptial and separation agreements – contracts made by couples before or during their marriage or civil partnership that are intended to govern their financial arrangements if their relationships end.

Publication of the consultation was delayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Radmacher v Grantino [2010] UKSC 42. In this case, Katrin Radmacher, a German heiress successfully defended her pre-nuptial agreement in a landmark case in the English courts.

In its consultation, the Law Commission is asking whether the current legislation provides the right basis for determining the effect of marital property agreements, or whether a new approach is needed. Could reform bring more autonomy and certainty to couples who want to enter into such agreements, whilst retaining sufficient safeguards to protect vulnerable spouses and children?

Marian Lynch, matrimonial partner at Pitmans, said that “bringing pre-nuptial agreements within the law is long overdue. In a modern society where many people marry more than once during their lifetime, pre-nuptial agreements have a vital role to play protecting people from exploitation.”

Professor Elizabeth Cooke, the Law Commissioner project leader said that “pre-nups were a topical issue” and “our consultation paper considers the arguments for and against reform and examines how a new approach might balance the desire of some couples to plot their own future with more certainty against exploitation and the creation of hardship. This is an issue that needs to be handled with care.”

Read more of The Law Commission’s Report on Pre-Nuptial Agreements

For further Matrimonial advice, please visit Pitmans Matrimonial website or contact our team direct.

Marian Lynch
+44 (0)118 957 0547
mlynch@pitmans.com

Leading law firm Pitmans has expanded its Matrimonial department with the appointment of Owen Reynolds as Director.

A family law specialist since 1996, Owen trained and qualified at Rowberry Morris in 1998, and became a partner in 2002. He joined The Head Partnership in 2006 to establish a matrimonial department in their Henley office.

Owen specialises in matrimonial finances including divorce, cohabitee disputes and Children Act matters. He also undertakes pre-nuptial and cohabitation agreements for the prevention of future disputes. Owen is a qualified Collaborative Lawyer, and a member of the Family Law Panel, Resolution, Reading & Berkshire Solicitor’s Association, and is a Berks & Bucks Resolution committee member. He is a former Chair of the Thames Valley Family Lawyers Society and previous Treasurer of the Thames Valley Collaborative Law Pod.

Marian Lynch, Head of Matrimonial commented:
“I am thrilled to welcome Owen to Pitmans. His expertise adds further strength and depth to our leading family/matrimonial team. Moreover his specialism in collaborative law is of particular value as we assist private individuals to resolve their differences out of court. It’s always pleasing to welcome a high calibre lawyer to Pitmans, and Owen’s background will make him an asset to both the team and the Firm as a whole.”

Leading law firm Pitmans is delighted to have assisted restaurant operator Zing Leisure Ltd in its acquisition of three restaurants from Burger King including flagship stores at Leicester Square and Queensway in central London.

Burger King were represented by their in-house team led by Debbie Waddell and by Clarke Wilmott.

Pitmans team comprised Tim Clark, who advised on franchising, Sally Sharp who advised on the acquisition of the premises and Philip Weaver who dealt with the asset purchase agreement.

Tim Clark comments: “Pitmans were delighted to assist Zing Leisure in their acquisition of three restaurants from Burger King. These flagship stores are situated in London’s consumer catering hubs and both deliver whopping footfall. It is illustrative of the astute commercial acumen that Zing Leisure possess in running their business that they have purchased these stores. ”