header-logo header-logo

Ruling on pensions

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

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll