High Court dismisses "insupportable" ombudsman determination

Mr Justice Field found that “no clear and unambiguous representation” was made to the member (referred to as JM Weale) by Cubic (UK) Ltd and the trustees of its pension scheme, about the carrying-over of an unreduced early retirement pension.

The court found the trustees and employer not guilty of misrepresenting Weale to his “detriment” when his company, WCL, was sold to Cubic in 1997, and he consented to transfer his pension into the new scheme.

Anne-Marie Winton (pictured), a partner at Nabarro, said the judgment, handed down last month, shows the “continuing difficulty” in establishing the legal concept of estoppel – a legal rule preventing a person from contradicting something they have previously encouraged a party to accept.

“No doubt the member was disappointed by this decision, but the principle remains that members primarily need to look to the governing trust deed and rules of their current scheme to set out their benefit entitlement,” she said.

 “It is rare for other documents or statements, if casually made, to ever to be taken into account.”

Jane Samsworth, head of pensions at Hogan Lovells, said: “The case makes it clear that an argument based on estoppel cannot succeed in the absence of some unambiguous representation that the claimant has relied on to his detriment.”

Weale did not suffer any “detriment” by joining the Cubic scheme, said Samsworth, as he could not have continued in the WCL scheme.  

She added: “[The case] also emphasises the primacy of the trust deed and rules in determining a member’s entitlement.”  

In July, the first successful use of estoppel in 20 years secured a spouse’s pension , where the appellant claimed he was “estopped” from being able to claim his spouse’s pension, despite receiving trustee assurances he would receive it.