The Ombudsman appealed a finding that it had no jurisdiction over the respondents in their provision of administrative support for pensions schemes.
Held: A person who took an ‘act of administration concerned with the scheme’ was not necessarily a person ‘concerned with the administration of the scheme’. There are important distinctions between the kinds of persons involved with the many administrative acts, and the nature of their involvement. The mere calculation of benefits was not enough.
Judges:
Phillips MR, Chadwick Keene LLJ
Citations:
Times 22-Oct-2002, Gazette 14-Nov-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1405
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Britannic Asset Management Ltd and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Pensions Ombudsman Admn 21-Mar-2002
The Ombudsman had sought to rule on a complaint against the applicants. They said the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction.
Held: For jurisdiction the Ombudsman had to rely upon his statutory powers. Those allowed him to rule on those who were, or . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Britannic Asset Management Ltd and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Pensions Ombudsman Admn 21-Mar-2002
The Ombudsman had sought to rule on a complaint against the applicants. They said the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction.
Held: For jurisdiction the Ombudsman had to rely upon his statutory powers. Those allowed him to rule on those who were, or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Administrative, Financial Services
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177481
