Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Financial Services - From: 2000 To: 2000

This page lists 24 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
Lansing Linder Ltd v Alber [2000] Pensions LR 15
2000
ChD
Rimer J
Equity, Financial Services
Pension scheme rules were amended varying the ages etc for retirement. The rules gave the company power to amend the rules with the consent of the Trustees. The original rules permitted early retirement on an immediate, but actuarially reduced, pension. Under the original rules, members of the scheme in service (actives) required the consent of the trustees and the company to take early retirement; those who had left service (deferreds) required the trustees' consent. The company claimed that the omission of the requirement for consent in the new rules was in error and that it was always intended that the right should be subject to consent of the company and trustees. The cost to the company of there being no requirement of consent was considerable, particularly with regard to the valuation of the benefits of deferreds. The memoranda and minutes of the trustees' meetings made no reference to consent being required for early retirement. Held: In relation to the actives, there was insufficient evidence that the absence in the new rules of the need for consent for early retirement between 60 and 65 on an unreduced pension failed to give effect to the intentions of the company and the trustees. But with regard to the deferreds, there was no positive intention to change their position. Rectification was refused, even as regards the deferreds, because "The evidence shows that, when they executed the deed, they had no clear common understanding of what it provided, and no clear common intention as to what it should provide. The only common thread of intention which appears to link the signatories was an intention to sign, wholly blindly, the document which was put before them on the basis that, as it was prepared by [the scheme administrators and scheme solicitors], it must be one they could safely sign. In short, their intention was no more complicated than to sign a deed in the form produced to them, whatever it in fact provided, and knowing that in material respects it had gone beyond the limits of what had been resolved ..." In any event there was no outward expression of accord. Responding to the argument that, since this was not a contract case, the applicable principles were those in Re Butlin's Settlement, and there was no need for outward expression of accord, "I agree... that the present claim is not one to rectify a contract, since no authority has been cited to me which expressly identifies the rectification requirements in a claim such as the present. I agree also that it may be said that to apply the Rose v Pim requirement of an outward expression of accord to the present case does involve a development of the principles. If so, however, I take the view that such a development requires only the smallest of steps."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Barclays Bank plc v Holmes [2000] PLR 339
2000


Financial Services
A pension in payment is an entitlement under a pension scheme.
1 Citers



 
 Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman; CA 21-Jan-2000 - Times, 26 January 2000; Gazette, 03 February 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 5
 
Westminster City Council v Haywood and another (No 2) Times, 26 January 2000; Gazette, 03 February 2000; Times, 10 March 2000
26 Jan 2000
ChD

Financial Services
Regulations had been brought adding new categories of scheme members with associated rights. Members of the scheme stated that they wished to complain, but the authority said that their membership was not of a class of member having the right to make such a complaint. Held: The effect of the regulations was retrospective, and that accordingly the members did have the right to complain to the ombudsman.
Personal and Occupational Pensions Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No 1) Regulations 1997 (1997 No 786)

 
Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department, ex parte Christian Norgren Gazette, 16 March 2000; [2000] EWHC QB 143; [2000] EWHC Admin 296; [2000] 3 WLR 181; [2000] QB 817
18 Feb 2000
Admn
Lord Bingham CJ, Klevan J
Financial Services, Extradition, Crime
The extradition of the defendant was requested by the US for breaches of insider dealing legislation. He claimed the issue of the order by the Home Secretary claiming it was not an extradition crime since at the time, the English equivalent offence related only to dealing on the Stock Exchange in London. Held: The decision in issue would be that of the magistrate, not the Home Secretary. The notice was correct on its face and should stand.
Extradition Act 1989 - Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Kettering Magistrates' Court ex parte MRB Insurance Brokers Limited Times, 12 May 2000; Gazette, 18 May 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 320
4 Apr 2000
Admn
Schiemann LJ, Douglas Brown J
Consumer, Crime, Financial Services
A statement of an APR in the sale of a financial services product remained a price indication, and, if it was miscalculated, that was a misleading price indication, and criminal, despite provisions in the Consumer Credit legislation. What was given was a price under the contract: "The total amount payable under the contract which can properly be described as the price, should be arrived at by reference to the APR. The APR given was very substantially below the true APR and Mr Pulford Junior was given a totally false indication as to how the aggregate of the sums required to be paid would be determined. In those circumstances clearly a misleading indication as to price was given. The question as to the enforceability of the agreement is quite irrelevant." As to the effect of the section: "Section 170(1) is not an obstacle to a prosecution under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, where the provisions of Section 20 are apt to cover a factual situation such as that which arose in this case."
Consumer Protection Act 1987 20 - Consumer Credit Act 1974 170(1)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Dennison v Krasner, Lesser, Lawrence Times, 18 April 2000; Gazette, 11 May 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 112; [2001] Ch 76
6 Apr 2000
CA
Chadwick LJ
Insolvency, Financial Services
A retirement annuity or personal pension was part of a bankrupt's estate before the recent Act, and vested immediately in the trustee on the bankruptcy. As such there was no need to make application to the court under s310 for an income payment order before those assets could be made available to the creditors. Acts of Parliament had at various times exempted certain kinds of pension assets from being available in this way, typically by avoiding assignments, but for this kind of pension this only happened in 1999. Chadwick LJ: ". . . in construing the relevant provisions of the [Insolvency Act 1986] the court should follow the approach indicated by Lord Diplock in Garland v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1983] 2 AC 751 at 755, and construe the words of the statute, if they are reasonably capable of bearing such a meaning, as intended to carry out an international obligation which the United Kingdom has assumed under a treaty or convention and not so as to be inconsistent with that obligation."
Insolvency Act 1986 306 (1) 310 - Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Wakelin and others v Read and another Times, 10 April 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 82; [2000] PLR 319; [2000] OPLR 277
10 Apr 2000
CA

Financial Services, Administrative
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 point of law. The wide discretion given by the statute did not include a power to act otherwise than in accordance with the law.
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 point of law. The wide discretion given by the statute did not include a power to act otherwise than in accordance with the law. The court had to consider the range of the ombudsman's powers, including whether these exceeded those of the court. Held: A point was been raised by the Trustees on the width of the Ombudsman’s discretion to give directions under s 151(2) of the 1993 Act. Mr Simmonds QC sought on behalf of the Trustees to uphold the decision of the Ombudsman to decline to direct the Trustees to pay the benefits on the ground that Mr Read did not come with clean hands. He submitted that the sub-section confers the widest possible discretion both as to the nature of the remedy granted and as to whether he should grant any remedy at all. He was not limited to those courses of action which would be open to a court in litigation. I am unable to accept this submission. "
Pension Schemes Act 1993 151 (2)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Wight and another v Olswang Times, 18 April 2000; Gazette, 05 May 2000
18 Apr 2000
ChD

Trusts, Financial Services
When assessing the actions of a trustee in making investment decisions, the presence of breaches of trust did not require any higher standard of decision making, and no claim by disappointed beneficiaries could succeed without showing that the decision was one which no reasonable man of ordinary prudence in that trustees circumstances of knowledge and background could have made.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Outram v Academy Plastics Ltd Times, 26 April 2000; Gazette, 18 May 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 141; [2001] 1CR 367
19 Apr 2000
CA
Tuckey LJ
Financial Services, Employment, Negligence
An employer, who also operated as trustee of the company's pension scheme, has no duty in negligence to give advice to scheme members as to how they should conduct their own membership of the scheme. No such obligation arises from the contractual relationship. Common law does not generally impose liability in tort for a pure omission. " Looking more generally at the nature of the duty alleged, it is, of course, a duty to avoid causing economic loss. Secondly, if there is a duty, breach of it will result in liability for an omission (failure to advise) in circumstances where it is not alleged that the company were asked or expressly or impliedly assumed any contractual responsibility to give such advice. As a general rule the common law does not impose liability in tort for what are called "pure omissions". In this respect it should be noted that in all the "advice"cases some advice had been given. The courts have had to decide whether it was given in circumstances which required the adviser to take care or whether a duty to do so, which was admittedly owed to some, was also owed to others. When advice has been given and a duty is owed the duty may be breached by omission but our case is one where no advice was given so it is one of pure omission."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Robert Mark Gordon v J B Wheatley and Co (a Firm) Times, 06 June 2000; Gazette, 15 June 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 173; [2000] Lloyds LR PN 605
24 May 2000
CA
Kennedy LJ, Kay LJ
Damages, Limitation, Financial Services, Professional Negligence
The defendant solicitors had negligently advised the claimant in connection with a mortgage scheme he operated for customers. His case was that the defendants had negligently failed to advise him to register under s3 of the 1986 Act. The claimant had to underwrite his customers' losses because of his failure to register. The SIB began its investigation into the claimant's business less than six years before he brought his action against the defendants, and its obligation compensate arose within the limitation period. However, his claim against the defendants was held to be time-barred, because the claimant had first suffered actionable loss, and therefore his cause of action had accrued, when the first customer entered into the mortgage scheme. He claimed that ". . . actual loss is not the same as a serious risk of loss, and … that until at the earliest the claimant signed the Deed of Undertaking and Indemnity (which was within the six year period) there was no more than a serious risk of loss." Held: Kennedy LJ put the argument: "Forster's case there was immediate damage to a discernible asset, the plaintiff's equity of redemption, not merely a risk of damage to her assets as a whole." and rejected those submissions relyining on Milton -v- Walker & Stanger. "… it is necessary to identify the loss claimed, and to measure it against the duty allegedly breached. Here the breach of duty relied upon is an alleged failure to advise the claimant how to operate in such a way as not to be likely to attract adverse criticism for the SIB, in consequence of which negligence vulnerable transactions were made which were all completed before the beginning of the six year period, and before the SIB began to investigate."
Financial Services Act 1986 3 - Limitation Act 1980
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Allied Irish Bank Group (Uk) Plc v Henelly Properties Ltd and Others Times, 07 June 2000
7 Jun 2000
ChD

Land, Financial Services
The fact that a mortgage advance was to be paid by stages as a building progressed, did not mean that the mortgage securing the advance was delivered in escrow until the building work was complete. If the mortgagee defaulted in his payments the lender was entitled to seek possession of the land at that time.


 
 Mahon, Kent v Dr Rahn, Biedermann, Haab-Biedermann, Rahn, and Bodmer (a Partnership) (No 2); CA 8-Jun-2000 - Times, 14 June 2000; Gazette, 29 June 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 185; [2000] 1 WLR 2150; [2000] EMLR 873; [2000] Po LR 210; [2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 1; [2000] 4 All ER 41
 
Whitbread plc v UCB Corporate Services Ltd Times, 22 June 2000; Gazette, 29 June 2000
22 Jun 2000
CA

Land, Financial Services
A deed altering the priorities of two mortgages limited the amount of the prior loan to a capital sum together with interest. The party with priority claimed to be entitled to compound interest, and the second resisted it. The court said that the word 'interest' must refer to that payable under the loan agreement secured by the deeds, and not to interest generally, and therefore the compounded interest was given priority.


 
 Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman; HL 20-Jul-2000 - Times, 21 July 2000; Gazette, 03 August 2000; [2000] UKHL 39; [2000] 3 All ER 961; [2000] 3 WLR 529; [2002] 1 AC 408; [2001] Lloyds Rep IR 99; [2000] Pens LR 249; [2000] OPLR 101
 
Regina and Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman Bureau Limited; Keith J Goss ex parte Royal and Sun Alliance Life and Pensions Limited Respondens [2000] EWHC Admin 379
27 Jul 2000
Admn

Financial Services

[ Bailii ]
 
Brooks v Civil Aviation Authority and Another Times, 28 July 2000
28 Jul 2000
IHCS

Financial Services, Administrative, Scotland
When the Pensions Ombudsman carried out an investigation under the Act, he was entitled to act on the information already gathered, and had no obligation to undertake a new factual enquiry. The issues in this case had been litigated repeatedly, and the ombudsman had a wide discretion as to the conduct of his investigation of the complaint, and in this case his decision could not be faulted.

 
Michael Gerson (Leasing) Limited v Michael Wilkinson and State Securities Limited Times, 12 September 2000; Gazette, 14 September 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 250; [2000] EWCA Civ 251; [2001] QB 514 CA
31 Jul 2000
CA

Contract, Financial Services, Agency
Where goods were subject to a financing arrangement involving a sale and leaseback with a finance company, the goods were to be treated as constructively delivered to the finance company on the sale. Delivery required a voluntary act by the person in actual possession, but that could be satisfied by an acknowledgement of the rights of the purchaser. Such assumptions are in accordance with modern sensible commercial practice. The mere request for an invoice was not of itself sufficient to establish that a contract was in place where delivery might be expected to take place only on payment.
Sale of Goods Act 1979 24 25
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
On Demand Information Plc and Another v Michael Gerson (Finance) Plc and Another Times, 19 September 2000
19 Sep 2000
CA

Financial Services, Litigation Practice
The power to grant relief from forfeiture in finance leases was real, but ceased to be available after property repossessed by the finance company had been contracted for sale by the applicants. The application for relief was in its nature, an application to permit the continuation of the lease, which could not be the basis where the property was to be sold.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Alliance and Leicester Plc v Slayford and Another; CA 12-Oct-2000 - Gazette, 26 October 2000; Times, 19 December 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 257

 
 Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (1); CA 3-Nov-2000 - Gazette, 18 January 2001; Times, 06 December 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 278; [2001] QB 407
 
Barclays Bank Plc v Holmes and others [2000] PLR 339; [2000] Pens LR 339; [2001] OPLR 37; [2000] EWHC Ch 457
21 Nov 2000
ChD
Neuberger J
Financial Services

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 AMP (UK) Plc and Another v Barker and Others; ChD 8-Dec-2000 - HC 001897; [2000] EWHC Ch 42; [2001] OPLR 197

 
 In Re Axa Equity and Law Life Assurance Society Plc; In Re Axa Sun Life Plc; ChD 19-Dec-2000 - Times, 19 December 2000; Gazette, 05 January 2001; [2001] 2 BCLC 447
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.