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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll