The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) has confirmed that it has lodged an appeal in relation to some of the High Court’s judgment in Hughes v Board of the Pension Protection Fund EWHC 1598 (Admin). Civil Fraud, Asset Recovery & Injunctive Relief. var ftY = ""; Pensions analysis: Through a landmark High Court decision, which overturned a decision by the Pensions Ombudsman, Royal London Mutual Insurance Society (Royal London) lost the right to block a suspected pension liberation transfer, and this could have far-reaching consequences across the pensions industry. In a judgment handed down on 28 July 2016, the Court of Appeal has referred Grenville Holden Hampshire v the Board of the Pension Protection Fund EWCA Civ 786 to the CJEU. In a last throw of the dice, both the DWP and the PPF have lodged applications for leave to appeal directly with the Appeal Court. A provisional ruling in July by the Court of Appeal found that capped pensioners should receive at least 50pc of their original pension entitlement. The Board of the PPF and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, 2 (Hughes) which considers several issues relating to the Pension Protection Funds (PPF's) implementation of the CJEU's ruling in Hampshire, 3 which broadly requires Hughes v. Woolworths Group Pension Trustee Limited [2012] EWHC 905 (Ch). Beaton v PPF, [2017] EWHC 2623 (Ch), [2017] All ER (D) 11 (Nov) Grenville Holden Hampshire v Board of the Pension Protection Fund (Court of Appeal) [2016] EWCA Civ 786 Blackstone Chambers uses cookies to run our site and improve its usability. “We’re continuing to work on our plans for how we could implement the June 2020 judgment, so that we’re in a position to do so if necessary as soon as possible after we know the appeal outcome,” noted the PPF. var ftRandom = Math.random()*1000000; The following Dispute Resolution news provides comprehensive and up to date legal information on PPF compensation—the cap, age discrimination and the 50 percent minimum (Hughes v Board of the Pension Protection Fund) The judgment also contains important analysis on delay in claims challenging the legality of legislation where private claims arise in parallel and upon the topic of limitation. This case was brought as a result of the Hampshire judgement and the PPF plans to remedy the compensation levels to comply with the judgement. Hughes v the Board of the Pension Protection Fund The High Court has ruled that the compensation cap applied by the Pensions Protection Fund (PPF) to members of schemes in the PPF who are below "normal pension age" at the start of the PPF assessment period was unlawful age discrimination contrary to … Represented the respondent in this important case concerning the provisions in the Pensions Act 2004 governing the operation of the PPF and the impact of the PPF assessment period on members’ benefits. Houldsworth v Bridge Trustees (Court of Appeal) - 4 March 2010. In Hughes and others v the Board of the Pension Protection Fund [2020] EWHC 1598 (Admin), the High Court has held that the imposition of the PPF compensation cap (applied to members that fall below their scheme’s normal pension age (NPA) on the date a PPF assessment period begins) constitutes unlawful discrimination on grounds of age, meaning the cap should be disapplied. It is also appealing as to how survivors’ benefits should be dealt with. On 22 June 2020, the High Court handed down its much-anticipated judgment in Hughes and others v The Board of the Pension Protection Fund. The case concerned a member, Mr Hampshire, whose pension had been reduced by 67% by the application of the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) compensation cap following the insolvency of his employer. Francesca Fabrizi meets Matti Leppälä, Secretary General and CEO of PensionsEurope, to discuss the key aims and objectives of the association today. Houldsworth v Bridge Trustees (Court of Appeal) - 4 March 2010. var ftBuildTag2 = "