The High Court has refused an application by trustees of the South Eastern Cattle Breeders Society Limited pension scheme to dismiss a former employee’s case at an interlocutory stage.
The motion sought dismissal on the grounds that the proceedings disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were frivolous and vexatious. The trustees also asked the court to strike out specified parts of the statement of claim as improper pleadings. Mr Justice Roderick Murphy refused both requests in a judgment dated 7 November 2012.
The plaintiff, Paul Ryan, claimed that the trustees breached their duties by refusing his application for an ill-health early retirement pension and by their handling of the scheme. His pleaded allegations included failures to act in good faith, apply fair procedures and adequately preserve the fund. These were claims to be determined in the proceedings, not findings made in this judgment.
The trustees relied on the scheme’s insolvency and on the Pensions Ombudsman’s consideration of Ryan’s complaint. Their chairman, Roger Kennedy, said the application for ill-health retirement came after the decision to wind up the scheme and that paying a new pension would reduce funds available to existing pensioners. He also argued that the Ombudsman’s decision had already determined the issue.
The judge noted the Ombudsman’s account that the scheme could not meet its liabilities to pensioners already receiving benefits, and that the Ombudsman had concluded an early retirement pension could not be considered in those circumstances. But the court was dealing with an interlocutory dismissal motion, not an appeal from the Ombudsman or a trial of Ryan’s claims.
The judgment said it was not frivolous or vexatious for a member who had contributed for 41 years to seek to establish whether he had preserved benefits and what steps had been taken concerning actuarial advice, auditing and compliance with pension legislation. The court also noted that the trustees’ evidence addressed the scheme’s insolvency when Ryan made his claim but did not explain compliance with their statutory obligations before that point.
The judge observed that the scheme rules appeared to provide options for a member leaving service before normal retirement age, including a deferred pension or a payment based on member contributions, subject to the rules and the scheme’s financial position. He did not decide that Ryan was entitled to any particular benefit.
The court also rejected the request to strike out specified pleading paragraphs. It found the issues had been adequately defined and that the challenged material did not need to be removed. The underlying case was therefore not dismissed by this motion; the judgment did not resolve the merits of the parties’ substantive claims.