The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to a preliminary decision that a pension complaint against the trustees of the Vodafone Ireland Pension Plan was made within the statutory time limit.
The complaint was brought by Gerry Fahy, a former member of the scheme. He says an amendment to its rules made in 2012 did not apply to him because he had left employment in 2011. The trustees dispute that interpretation. The court did not decide whether the amendment affected his entitlements.
A statement issued by the pension provider in February 2018 set out a transfer value calculated under the amended rules. The judgment said the difference between calculations under the two sets of rules was more than €1 million. Fahy complained to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman on 24 August 2018, after completing the provider’s internal dispute procedure.
The provider argued that the complaint was effectively about the 2012 amendment, so the six-year limitation period ran from that year. It also pointed to a June 2012 letter telling Fahy that his transfer value had been calculated under the amended rules. The ombudsman accepted that a complaint could have been made at that time, but concluded that the later calculation could still be challenged.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons said the provider’s argument mischaracterised the complaint. Fahy was not seeking to invalidate the amendment, but alleged that the provider had wrongly applied it to his circumstances and had continued to refuse to recognise the value he claimed under the earlier rules.
Under the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman Act 2017, the court explained, time for a series of acts or omissions runs from the last act. The ombudsman had treated the 2012 and 2018 transfer value calculations as part of the same series. The judge found that this characterisation was not irrational and that the complaint, made within months of the February 2018 statement, was in time.
The proceedings were an application for judicial review of a preliminary eligibility decision, rather than a statutory appeal following a completed investigation. The court said it would intervene in the ombudsman’s factual characterisation only if it was unreasonable or irrational. The challenge failed under that standard; the underlying complaint remained for the ombudsman to investigate and determine.
The court dismissed the judicial review proceedings. The judge’s provisional view was that the ombudsman was entitled to costs against the pension provider. Written submissions on any different costs order were due by 21 February 2022, with the case listed for final orders on 25 February.