We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 11-20 of 40

Court of Appeal rules on enforceability of compromise agreements which cover pension terms

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 6 2010

We understand that the Court of Appeal has confirmed that section 91 Pensions Act 1995, which prohibits the assignment, commutation or surrender of a "right to a future pension", "does not present an obstacle to reaching a binding bona fide compromise of a bona fide dispute"

FSD determination affecting Lehman Brothers scheme

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • September 30 2010

On 17 September, the Pension Regulator's Determinations Panel announced that it had issued a determination that six companies within the Lehman Brothers group (including the group's main operating companies in the UK as well as the US parent Lehman Brothers Holding Inc.) should provide financial support to the Lehman Brothers Pension Scheme

Defined benefit schemes should not have to pay VAT on investment management services NAPF and HMRC take dispute to ECJ

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • -
  • April 4 2011

HMRC and the National Association of Pension Funds have referred a two-year legal dispute over whether DB schemes should have to pay VAT on investment management services to the European Court of Justice

Court of Appeal considers the meaning of "money purchase benefits" in Bridge Trustees v Yates

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • March 17 2010

In Houldsworth v Bridge Trustees and the Department for Work and Pensions (the appeal stage of Bridge Trustees v Yates), the Court of Appeal had to consider whether certain unusual benefits should be classified as money purchase benefits on a winding-up

High Court holds that an attempt to equalise the scheme's NRD by using a power contained in the definition of NRD was invalid the general power of amendment should have been used

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • April 4 2011

Capita ATL Pension Trustees Ltd & Anor v Gellately & Ors 2011 EWHC 485 (Ch) involved an application by the scheme trustees to the court for directions in relation to a scheme whose amendment power gave the scheme's principal employer a power to amend the definitive deed by deed and the rules by board resolution or by deed; in either case, the trustees' consent was required to the amendment

High Court considers the scope of the Pensions Ombudsman's jurisdiction

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 20 2012

In The Pensions Ombudsman v EMC Europe Limited and Others 2012 EWHC 3508 (Ch), the High Court has decided that the Pensions Ombudsman did not have

Court of Session rules on the characteristics of a deed under Scottish law in the context of an equalisation amendment

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 6 2010

Low & Bonar PLC and Low & Bonar Pension Trustees Limited v Mercer Limited also concerned a purported scheme amendment to equalise normal retirement ages (from age 60 for women and 65 for men, to age 65 for both sexes

High Court holds that an announcement was ineffective to validly equalise normal retirement agesbut ambiguous wording in a deed of amendment can be interpreted in the context of the rules as a whole

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 6 2010

Independent Trustee Services Limited and the Trustees of the Holbourn Group Pension Scheme v Knell concerned the interpretation of an amendment to the rules of the Holbourn Group Pension Scheme

Advocate General concludes that qualifying periods can restrict freedom of movement

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 3 2010

Employers who transfer employees between member states may need to consider how to ensure that members' benefits are not adversely affected by the transfer in light of a decision of the Advocate General in Maurits Casteels v British Airways plc (C-37909

German Federal Labour Court: no obligation to increase pensions in spite of economically stable parent company

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • Germany, United Kingdom
  • -
  • March 10 2011

According to German law, every three years an employer must adjust its current company pensions to the rise in the cost of living, but only if its financial situation allows it to do this