The Supreme Court allowed former Waterford Crystal employee Walter Croke to amend his claim against the company over pension information given when he accepted voluntary redundancy. The proposed amendments must be revised to remove allegations against Irish Pensions Trust Limited (IPT) and approved by the court. The court also allowed Croke to deliver late replies to both companies’ defences, with different arrangements for each.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Geoghegan on 26 November 2004, concerned appeals from two High Court refusals: permission to amend the statement of claim and permission to file replies after the deadline. The Supreme Court’s ruling addressed those interlocutory applications; it did not decide the underlying pension claims.
Croke alleged that Waterford Crystal told him his only options were to accept voluntary redundancy or move to a lower-paid section. He said he accepted the package and received a refund of pension contributions, but later discovered he could have transferred his pension value or taken a deferred pension from age 65. He alleged that the available options had been concealed and that he would have chosen a deferred pension if properly informed. These were claims in the pleadings, not findings by the Supreme Court.
The court considered that the proposed amendments against Waterford Crystal expanded allegations of deliberate inducement and concealment already implicit in the original claim. It said there was no relevant legal prejudice shown that justified refusing those amendments. However, the draft also made serious allegations of fraud, deceit and conspiracy against IPT. The existing claim against IPT alleged failures to provide pension information and breaches of duty. The court found no factual basis in the pleadings or replies to requests for particulars to support the proposed deliberate-misconduct allegations against IPT, and refused permission to add them.
The court allowed Croke to reply to IPT’s existing defence. As to Waterford Crystal, the court said a reply should follow an amended defence, which the company could deliver after receiving a suitably revised and court-approved statement of claim. If no amended defence were filed, Croke could reply to the existing defence. The court said the additional pleadings should be delivered promptly; a separate appeal about directions for managing the wider group of cases remained to be heard.