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

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll