Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2002] All ER (D) 317 (Mar)
Court: Administrative Court
Judge:

Lightman J

Representation Christopher Nugee QC and Caroline Furze (instructed by CMS Cameron McKenna) for the claimants.
  Christopher Tidmarsh (instructed by John Yolland) for the ombudsman.
Judgment Dates: 21 March 2002

Catchwords

Pension - Pension scheme - Maladministration of pension scheme - Jurisdiction of Pensions Ombudsman - Claimants processing disinvestment at request of trustees of scheme ||Whether claimants administrators - Whether ombudsman having jurisdiction to hear complaint of maladministration - Personal and Occupational Pensions Schemes (Pensions Ombudsman) Regulations 1996, reg 1(2).

The Case

Administering a funded scheme for the purposes of reg 1(2) of the Personal and Occupational Pensions Schemes (Pensions Ombudsman) Regulations 1996 would involve running the fund, investing and managing the scheme's assets. The ultimate responsibility for all those acts would usually lie with the trustees, but if someone else carried out the day-to-day running on their behalf that person might be a manager; and if someone was otherwise involved with an act of administration for the trustees, whether by carrying out such an act or advising on it, that person might be concerned with the administration of the scheme. Thus the touchstone was whether the person was engaged to act, or advise, in or about the trustees' affairs in running the scheme. It was of the essence for a person to be or act as an administrator that he should have assumed an administrative role on the trustees' side in the administration of the scheme's affairs.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.