Prudential Transfer Documents

EQUITABLE LIFE MEMBERS

Bindman and Partners Press Release

Last Updated: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:43 PM

PRESS RELEASE 6 February 2008

COURT OF APPEAL POISED TO RULE ON

PENSION CAMPAIGNERS’ TEST CASE

125,000 workers who lost their occupational pensions when their company schemes were wound up are anxiously awaiting tomorrow’s Court of Appeal ruling on their judicial review challenge to the Pensions Minister rejection of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report on the scandal. She had found his Department guilty of maladministration and recommended compensation for financial losses along with the “distress and outrage” the pension scheme members had experienced on discovering their pensions were only as secure as the sponsoring employers’ businesses.

In February last year, Mr Justice Bean allowed the campaigners’ judicial review and in a scathing judgement held that “no reasonable Secretary of State could rationally disagree” with the Ombudsman’s conclusion that the Department’s information about pension security had been “inaccurate and misleading”. In response the Department made significant improvements to its Financial Assistance Scheme, but maintained that there was no maladministration, nor any injustice caused to the pension scheme members affected. In the Court of Appeal, where the case was heard in July, its legal term sought to portray the Ombudsman herself as “irrational” and “unfair”. Judgement will be handed down by the Court of Appeal at 9.45 am in Court 63. A full press briefing will be available immediately afterwards.

On 14 March 2006 the Ombudsman ruled that the Department for Work and Pensions had acted maladministratively by failing to warn pensions scheme members that they had no more than a 50% chance of recovering their pensions if the sponsoring company became insolvent or wound up its scheme before they had retired. The then Minister, John Hutton, responded the following day, rejecting the Ombudsman’s findings and recommendations that pensions be restored.

But in the first judicial review test case of its kind, three of those who complained to the Ombudsman – Henry Bradley, Andrew Parr and Rob Duncan - argued that the Minister’s reasons for snubbing the Ombudsman were irrational and that he should have accepted maladministration had occurred before rejecting her recommendations that lost pensions should be restored, distress compensated for and apologies made. They also argued that the Minister had no power to act as judge in his own cause and that once the Ombudsman had ruled there was maladministration by his Department’s officials, he was legally bound to accept that.

The campaigners are represented by John Halford, a partner at leading public law solicitors Bindman and Partners, along with Dinah Rose QC and Tom Hickman. Dr Ros Altmann has supported the claimants and the legal team throughout. Such is the importance of the case that the House of Commons itself intervened and made submissions to the Court.

John Halford the campaigners’ solicitor said today:

“This case raises a fundamental constitutional question: whether a Minister is free to snub the Ombudsman despite her being the independent investigator appointed by Parliament to investigate serious administrative errors. But behind that are tens of thousands of workers who continue to suffer extreme financial hardship and the associated stress because they invested in pensions they believed were safe having been told as much by his Department. While the improvements in the Financial Assistance Scheme announced in December last year are welcome, it is scandalous that this case had to be brought to spur the Minister into action. We hope the Court of Appeal will firmly uphold the authority of the Ombudsman, in turn obliging the new Minister to end the culture of denial, apologise and remedy the outstanding injustice in this case in line with the Ombudsman’s recommendations.”

	EQUITABLE LIFE MEMBERS Bindman and Partners Press Release Last Updated: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:43 PM

	PRESS RELEASE 6 February 2008 COURT OF APPEAL POISED TO RULE ON PENSION CAMPAIGNERS’ TEST CASE 125,000 workers who lost their occupational pensions when their company schemes were wound up are anxiously awaiting tomorrow’s Court of Appeal ruling on their judicial review challenge to the Pensions Minister rejection of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report on the scandal. She had found his Department guilty of maladministration and recommended compensation for financial losses along with the “distress and outrage” the pension scheme members had experienced on discovering their pensions were only as secure as the sponsoring employers’ businesses. In February last year, Mr Justice Bean allowed the campaigners’ judicial review and in a scathing judgement held that “no reasonable Secretary of State could rationally disagree” with the Ombudsman’s conclusion that the Department’s information about pension security had been “inaccurate and misleading”. In response the Department made significant improvements to its Financial Assistance Scheme, but maintained that there was no maladministration, nor any injustice caused to the pension scheme members affected. In the Court of Appeal, where the case was heard in July, its legal term sought to portray the Ombudsman herself as “irrational” and “unfair”. Judgement will be handed down by the Court of Appeal at 9.45 am in Court 63. A full press briefing will be available immediately afterwards. On 14 March 2006 the Ombudsman ruled that the Department for Work and Pensions had acted maladministratively by failing to warn pensions scheme members that they had no more than a 50% chance of recovering their pensions if the sponsoring company became insolvent or wound up its scheme before they had retired. The then Minister, John Hutton, responded the following day, rejecting the Ombudsman’s findings and recommendations that pensions be restored. But in the first judicial review test case of its kind, three of those who complained to the Ombudsman – Henry Bradley, Andrew Parr and Rob Duncan - argued that the Minister’s reasons for snubbing the Ombudsman were irrational and that he should have accepted maladministration had occurred before rejecting her recommendations that lost pensions should be restored, distress compensated for and apologies made. They also argued that the Minister had no power to act as judge in his own cause and that once the Ombudsman had ruled there was maladministration by his Department’s officials, he was legally bound to accept that. The campaigners are represented by John Halford, a partner at leading public law solicitors Bindman and Partners, along with Dinah Rose QC and Tom Hickman. Dr Ros Altmann has supported the claimants and the legal team throughout. Such is the importance of the case that the House of Commons itself intervened and made submissions to the Court. John Halford the campaigners’ solicitor said today: “This case raises a fundamental constitutional question: whether a Minister is free to snub the Ombudsman despite her being the independent investigator appointed by Parliament to investigate serious administrative errors. But behind that are tens of thousands of workers who continue to suffer extreme financial hardship and the associated stress because they invested in pensions they believed were safe having been told as much by his Department. While the improvements in the Financial Assistance Scheme announced in December last year are welcome, it is scandalous that this case had to be brought to spur the Minister into action. We hope the Court of Appeal will firmly uphold the authority of the Ombudsman, in turn obliging the new Minister to end the culture of denial, apologise and remedy the outstanding injustice in this case in line with the Ombudsman’s recommendations.”