The High Court has refused applications by Irish Life Staff Benefits Scheme and Irish Life Assurance plc to dismiss John Healy’s claims over the treatment of his pension in UK bankruptcy proceedings.
In a judgment delivered on 25 July 2018, Ms Justice Donnelly found that the claims were not shown to be bound to fail. The ruling was made on motions for summary dismissal, not after a trial of the underlying dispute. The court did not decide whether the defendants were liable or whether the new pension scheme had to obtain approval from UK tax authorities.
Healy worked for Irish Life Assurance in Ireland until 2011. His membership of the original staff pension scheme was transferred to a new scheme in 1990, when the company became publicly floated. The original scheme was approved for UK bankruptcy purposes, but the new scheme was not. Healy moved to the UK in 2011 and was adjudicated bankrupt there in 2013. A UK trustee in bankruptcy claimed his rights and benefits under the new scheme.
Healy’s statement of claim alleges that the defendants were obliged to preserve the terms and advantages of the original scheme, including its UK approval status. He claims negligence, breach of contract and breach of duty, among other causes of action. The defendants argued that approval by the UK authorities was not a pension benefit required to be carried over, that the claims were out of time, and that a 2011 settlement agreement barred claims against Irish Life Assurance.
The judge said approval itself was not a “benefit” as defined in the relevant legislation. However, she found it arguable that the statutory requirement for terms “not less favourable” could encompass rights or practical advantages connected with membership of the original scheme. She declined to give a definitive interpretation of the legislation on a dismissal motion.
The contract claim was found to be statute barred because the alleged breach occurred more than six years before proceedings were issued. The judge nevertheless concluded that the tort claim was not bound to fail on limitation grounds: on the pleaded case, Healy argued that his loss arose from UK court orders starting in 2013. She also found it arguable that the 2011 settlement did not cover a cause of action that had not yet accrued.
The court rejected the argument that the claims against the pension scheme failed for lack of a pleaded legal wrong. It also declined to dismiss the negligence claim as untenable, noting that the issues required fuller consideration. The judge refused the relief sought by both defendants. The substantive claims remain unresolved.