Edge and others v Pensions Ombudsman and Another: CA 29 Jul 1999

The Pensions Ombudsman was wrong to set aside the decision of pensions trustees where that decision was properly made within the scope of a discretion given to the Trustees. He should not carry out an investigation where no particular benefit could accrue, and also not where his decision might adversely affect parties who could not be party to the process.
In reaching his decision whether and how to exercise his discretionary powers the Pensions Ombudsman must take into account all relevant but no irrelevant factors. The court noted the similarity between the grounds on which a decision by trustees may be attacked and the grounds on which official decision-making is subject to judicial review. Chadwick LJ talked about the ‘ordinary duty which the law imposes on a person who is entrusted with the exercise of a discretionary power’ when comparing the duties of trustees with the duties of public bodies under the Wednesbury principle. He also drew my attention to other contexts where the exercise of a power has been set aside for a failure to take into account a relevant consideration.
Chadwick LJ
Times 19-Oct-1999, [2000] Ch 602, [1999] EWCA Civ 2013, [1999] 4 All ER 546
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedEdge v Pensions Ombudsman 12-Dec-1997
The Vice Chancellor discussed whether the pensions ombudsman had powers wider than those of the court. Referring to Hillsdown, he said: ‘I respectfully agree with this approach. In a case in which the maladministration complained of consists of an . .
Appeal fromEdge v Pensions Ombudsman 12-Dec-1997
The Vice Chancellor discussed whether the pensions ombudsman had powers wider than those of the court. Referring to Hillsdown, he said: ‘I respectfully agree with this approach. In a case in which the maladministration complained of consists of an . .

Cited by:
CitedAbacus Trust Company (Isle of Man) Colyb Limited v Barr, Barr, and Barr ChD 6-Feb-2003
abacus_barrChD03
The court considered the Rule in Hastings-Bass, and specifically (1) whether the trustee’s decision is open to challenge when the failure to take a consideration into account is not attributable to a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the . .
CitedLegal and General Assurance Society Ltd v CCA Stationery Ltd ChD 12-Dec-2003
The claimant had managed a pension scheme for the respondent company. It now challenged a finding of maladministration of the scheme, with respect to the methods of calculation of discounts applicable to those leaving the scheme.
Held: Since . .
CitedFourie v Le Roux and others HL 24-Jan-2007
The appellant, liquidator of two South African companies, had made a successful without notice application for an asset freezing order. He believed that the defendants had stripped the companies of substantial assets. The order was set aside for . .
CitedPitt and Another v Holt and Others ChD 18-Jan-2010
The deceased had created a settlement in favour of his wife. He suffered serious injury and placed the damages in trust, but in a form which created an unnecessary liability to Inheritance Tax on his death. The wife’s mental health act receiver now . .
CitedPitt and Another v Holt and Another ChD 18-Jan-2010
The claimant sought to unravel a settlement she had made as receiver for her late husband, saying that it had been made without consideration of its Inheritance Tax implications. The Revenue said that there was no operative mistake so as to allow . .
CitedFutter and Another v Revenue and Customs; Pitt v Same SC 9-May-2013
Application of Hastings-Bass Rule
F had created two settlements. Distributions were made, but overlooking the effect of section 2(4) of the 2002 Act, creating a large tax liability. P had taken advice on the investment of the proceeds of a damages claim and created a discretionary . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 January 2021; Ref: scu.146928