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 the calculations employed would have been carried out for others whether or not the instant pension scheme had existed, those methods were not part of the administration of the scheme, and the ombudsman had no jurisdiction to order their disclosure.
Judges:
Mr Justice Laddie
Citations:
[2003] EWHC 2989 (Ch)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Local Commissioner for Administration for the North and East Area of England ex parte Bradford Metropolitan City Council CA 1979
The court considered the meaning of ‘maladministration’ in the section.
Held: Lord Denning MR said: ‘It will cover ‘bias, neglect, inattention, delay, incompetence, ineptitude, perversity, turpitude, arbitrariness and so on.’ It ‘would be a . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte Eastleigh Borough Council CA 1988
Maladministration includes bias, neglect, inattention, delay, incompetence, inaptitude, perversity, turpitude and arbitrariness in reaching a decision or exercising a discretion, but that it has nothing to do with the intrinsic merits of the . .
Cited – Regina v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration ex parte Dyer QBD 19-Oct-1993
Parliamentary Commissioners decisions are reviewable, but range of the discretion given to him by the Act is very wide, and his decisions will only rarely be susceptible to review. He is answerable to Parliament. . .
Cited – Hillsdown Holdings plc v Pensions Ombudsman 1997
The court had to answer the question of whether the Pensions Ombudsman could make orders which the court could not.
Held: It could not, Knox J said: ‘there is a real distinction between ordering compensation for inconvenience and distress . .
Cited – Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers HL 26-Jul-1977
The claimant sought an injunction to prevent the respondent Trades Union calling on its members to boycott mail to South Africa. The respondents challenged the ability of the court to make such an order.
Held: The wide wording of the statute . .
Cited – Miller; KC Independent Trustees Limited v Stapleton and Pensions Ombudsman CA 30-Jul-1996
. .
Cited – Westminster City Council v Haywood, Pensions Ombudsman CA 28-Jan-1997
The Pension’s Ombudsman has no jurisdiction on severance for a non-pensionable employee. . .
Cited – Edge 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 – Wakelin and others v Read and another CA 10-Apr-2000
The Pensions Ombudsman did not have the right to exercise his discretion to provide a different answer to the one which would be given by a court. This followed from the right given to parties to appeal against his decisions to the High Court on a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Financial Services
Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.188709
