In the case of Allan v Johnson Controls Automotive Ltd the Court of Appeal rejected arguments that there had been oral agreement for enhanced pension entitlements based on one-thirtieths accrual.

Although Mr Allan was found to be an honest witness and the defendants did not produce evidence denying that the oral agreement existed, the Court of Appeal commented that where findings turn wholly or substantially on oral evidence given by witnesses at trial an appellate court would be slow to interfere.

It was held that in the circumstances it was entirely reasonable for the judge to find that it was inherently implausible that there would be no written record of an offer for enhanced pension rights. The judge was entitled to find that the absence of any contemporaneous documentation supporting the making of the oral agreement and the fact that Mr Allan (a former trustee himself) did not protest when he received documents inconsistent with the purported agreement were sufficient to defeat the weight of the oral evidence .