• Login
  • Register
  • PRO
    • PRO Compliance plan
    • PRO Compliance
    • PRO subscription plans
    • Curated articles
    • In-depth
    • Market intelligence
    • Practice guides
    • PRO Reports New
    • Lexology GTDT
    • Ask Lexy
  • PRO
  • Latest
  • GTDT
  • Research
  • Learn
  • Experts
  • Store
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
  • Influencers
  • About
  • Explore
  • Legal Research
  • Primary SourcesBeta
  • PRO Compliance

Introducing PRO Compliance
The essential resource for in-house professionals

  • Compare
  • Topics
  • Interviews
  • Guides
Getting The Deal Through joins Lexology
GTDT and Lexology Navigator have merged

CONTENT DEVELOPMENT

Become your target audience’s go-to resource for today’s hottest topics.

  • Trending Topics New
  • Discover Content
  • Horizons Beta
  • Ideation

CLIENT INTELLIGENCE

Understand your clients’ strategies and the most pressing issues they are facing.

  • Track Sectors
  • Track Clients
  • Mandates New
  • Discover Companies
  • Reports Centre New

COMPETITOR INTELLIGENCE

Keep a step ahead of your key competitors and benchmark against them.

  • Benchmarking
  • Competitor Mandates New

Lexology PRO

Power up your legal research with modern workflow tools, AI conceptual search and premium content sets that leverage Lexology's archive of 900,000+ articles contributed by the world's leading law firms. 

PRO Compliance plan
PRO subscription plans

Premium content

  • Curated articles
  • In-depth
  • Market intelligence
  • Practice guides
  • PRO Reports New

Analysis tools

  • Lexology GTDT
  • Ask Lexy
Explore all PRO content PRO Compliance
  • Find experts
  • About
  • Firms
Introducing Instruct Counsel
The next generation search tool for finding the right lawyer for you.
Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like
  • Instruct

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Questions? Please contact [email protected]

Register

High Court decides that "to secure" benefits under a scheme does not mean that the scheme should be funded on the full buy-out basis

Herbert Smith Freehills LLP

To view this article you need a PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader. Download Adobe Acrobat Reader

United Kingdom March 4 2008

In Alitalia v Rotunno [2008] EWHC 185, it was held that an employer contribution rule which required contributions to be set at a level "to secure the benefits under the Scheme" does not necessarily mean that the scheme should be funded to buy-out level.

The employer contribution rule at issue provided that:

"Each of the employers shall make contributions to the fund at a rate determined from time to time by the trustees acting on the advice of the Actuary after consultation with the Principal Employer to secure the benefits under the scheme…"

In the scheme's recent history, the employer's contribution rate had been calculated by reference to an ongoing funding basis. However, a new scheme actuary had recommended that the trustees should request funding from Alitalia on the buy-out basis, basing his recommendation on an assessment of Alitalia's financial position and "other uncertainties regarding its covenant". The recommendation was also backed up by Counsel's opinion which stated that funding on the buy-out basis was necessary in order to meet the threshold set in the rules, namely that of securing the benefits under the scheme.

However, the Court held that the rules should be constructed to make practical sense in an ongoing environment and not only in a winding-up environment. Whilst noting that the word "secure" normally has a connotation of "making safe", the Court also noted that the element of security is provided both by the contractual promise of the employer and by the status of the members as beneficiaries under a trust, safely insulated from the employer's creditors. It was necessary to adopt a construction of the employer contribution rule which made "good commercial sense" both when the scheme is operating on an ongoing basis and when a winding-up is in prospect. To require the trustees to request employer contributions by reference to the buy-out basis, "made no commercial sense" and would also be "methodologically unsound".

Whilst the language of the Alitalia employer contribution rule is quite rare (the Court itself noted that the verb "secure" was only used in about 2% of cases), the Court's reluctance to give the word its natural meaning is interesting. Instead, the Court took a pragmatic view and accepted a construction of the rule based on the commercial considerations relevant to operating a scheme on an ongoing basis

High Court decides that trustees are entitled to an indemnity from the employer, before recourse to the fund

Also in the Alitalia case, the Court held that the scheme's trustees were entitled to an indemnity from Alitalia under the rules of the scheme, notwithstanding that a consensual pre-emptive cost order had been made which enabled (but did not oblige) the trustees to pay their costs, relating to the main proceedings, from the assets of the scheme. The Court's view was that the pre-emptive costs order entitled the trustees to their costs out of the fund whatever the outcome of the proceedings, if they were not able to recover their costs from anybody else. Nothing in the order prevented the trustees from seeking to lessen the burden of the fund by requiring Alitalia to pay their costs pursuant to the indemnity provision in the scheme rules. The Court saw no reason to assume that the right to an indemnity from Alitalia under the scheme rules was merely a fallback or secondary entitlement. Furthermore, the funding position of the scheme was not relevant to the Court's conclusion; the judge stated that the outcome would be the same even if the scheme was in surplus.

Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like
  • Instruct

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Filed under

  • United Kingdom
  • Employee Benefits & Pensions
  • Litigation
  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP

Tagged with

  • Costs in English law
  • High Court of Justice
  • Beneficiary
  • Consent
  • Legal burden of proof
  • Liquidation
  • Trustee
  • Actuary

Popular articles from this firm

  1. Back-to-back contracts *
  2. UK: short notice period undermines enforceability of covenants *
  3. The Increasing Prominence of Sustainable Financing for Corporates *
  4. The Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act: A new era for online regulation within Europe *
  5. The new DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Rules 2021 - Key Features *

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email [email protected].

Powered by Lexology
loading...

Related topic hubs

  1. United Kingdom
  2. Litigation
  3. Employee Benefits & Pensions

Related United Kingdom articles

  1. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane SPA v Rotunno and others *
  2. Interpretation of contribution rule - basis of valuation - Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane SpA v Rotunno and others *
  3. Buy-ins and buy-outs *

Related international articles

  1. Lessons from the Omega Pharma pensions case * - Ireland
  2. Commission opens in-depth investigation into EUR 300 million loan to Alitalia * - European Union
  3. Brief update on topical EU competition law issues * - European Union
Jan H Snÿman
Chief Legal Adviser: Labour & Employment Law
Sasol Group of Companies
What our clients say

"Lexology is a very relevant and interesting resource for South African in-house lawyers. The newsfeeds are a good measure of a firm's expertise and offer an interesting insight into recent legal developments. I would highly recommend Lexology to colleagues."

Back to Top
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
  • GDPR compliance
  • RSS feeds
  • Contact
  • Submissions
  • About
  • Login
  • Register
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Search
Law Business Research

© Copyright 2006 - 2021 Law Business Research