Canada: What Trustees And Employers Can Learn From Barnardo's About CPI / RPI And Subsisting Rights

Last Updated: November 22 2016
Article by Christopher Stiles

On 2 November 2016, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Barnardo's & Ors v Buckinghamshire & Ors.

Was the Retail Prices Index (RPI) or the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) the most appropriate index for revaluing deferred pensions and increasing pensions in payment? More importantly, who had the power to decide?  In this update, we summarise the key points of the judgment that could have wider relevance to pension scheme trustees and sponsors. 

Key points

  1. A scheme-specific question
    The question of which index to use, and/or who has the power to decide, are scheme-specific questions, dependent on the rules of the scheme.
  2. A body of authorities but no definitive answers
    This case will join the cases of QinetiQ and Arcadia as part of a body of authorities on interpreting scheme rules on questions of inflation indices. However, every scheme is different. Because of the potential savings to be obtained from switching away from RPI, disputes over RPI and CPI in pension schemes are likely to continue for some time.
  3. A right to A or B
    The Court of Appeal provided clarity on an important point in relation to subsisting rights under section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995. Where the scheme rules contain a power to adopt a different index, exercising that power in respect of pensions already accrued will not infringe the subsisting rights protections of section 67.
  4. Context is important
    The specific words in question are not the only things examined in such cases. The correct construction of scheme rules is also influenced by the remainder of the document. It can also be influenced (up to a point) by the background facts.

RPI/CPI - the debate continues

As with many issues concerning UK occupational pensions, the question of how to determine inflation-linked pension increases ought to be simple, but is far from it.  The Court of Appeal decision in Barnardo's provides a further court judgment to aid us in questions of whether RPI or CPI is the appropriate index and (more to the point) who has the power to determine it.

Rules of the Barnardo's pension scheme

The judgment confirmed that the question of which index to use, and who has the power to decide it, is a scheme-specific question which is dependent on the correct construction of the rules of the scheme in question.  Often, the possibility of this debate occurring will have been far from the draftsman's mind when drafting scheme rules, so, unfortunately, drafting style or accidental choices of language can have very significant unintended consequences.

I will not focus in detail on the rules of the Barnardo's scheme, because the details are of interest only to that scheme and its stakeholders, but the key provision was a definition of RPI as follows:

"Retail Prices Index means the General Index of Retail Prices published by the Department of Employment or any replacement adopted by the Trustees without prejudicing Approval..."

The question the court had to decide was:

  1. whether the reference to a "replacement" index gave the trustees the power to adopt a replacement index to RPI of their own choosing, even if RPI continued to exist; or
  2. whether the word "replacement" limited the trustees' discretion to circumstances where RPI itself had been replaced by its publisher.

The court held by a two-to-one majority that the second was the correct interpretation. 

Wording like that quoted above is fairly common.  However, the judges did not consider it in isolation, but in the wider context of the rules - their preference was influenced by the further use of the word "replaced" later in the relevant provision, which indicated, in that context, that the draftsman was using it to refer to replacement by RPI's publisher.  It was also influenced by the drafting used in theappendix to the rules which incorporated the old Inland Revenue limits.  The content of those revenue limits themselves was also a factor in construing the language.

The fact that one of the three judges produced a clear and well-argued dissenting judgment shows how there is often not a clear-cut answer to this, and individual lawyers (and judges) can interpret the same words in dramatically different ways.

Although each case turns on the rules in question, they all give us - as lawyers - further material to draw upon when we seek to advise trustees and employers on how their rules might be interpreted if disputed in court.  The fact that this is a Court of Appeal judgment gives it added authority.  It sits alongside the earlier cases of QinetiQ and Arcadia as part of a body of authority; the more that body grows, the easier it will become to discern general legal principles that can be applied to most forms of drafting. 

As things stand, we are still in the early stages: disputes over RPI and CPI in pension schemes are likely to continue for some time.

Accrued rights

One point from the case which does have wider application is the Court of Appeal's conclusion on the question of accrued rights.

Rights in a pension scheme that have already accrued (so-called "subsisting rights") are protected from detrimental modifications by section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995.  The question therefore arises of what the subsisting right is, in relation to a pension with an associated increase in line with "RPI or a replacement index adopted by the Trustees", or similar wording.

On one interpretation of such language, RPI is the default basis for increases, and if the trustees use their power to adopt an alternative index to increase pension deriving from past service, that is a modification to subsisting rights and therefore subject to section 67.

On the other interpretation, however, the pension accrued on the basis that it would be increased in line with either RPI or whatever index the trustees were using at the time when the increase fell to be applied.  Following that logic, the trustees are not affecting any subsisting rights if they do indeed use an alternative index to RPI.

The High Court cases of QinetiQ and Arcadia both chose the latter interpretation.  Their reasoning was open to question, not least because it appears inconsistent with the Court of Appeal's decision in Aon v KPMG, which gave rise to similar issues albeit not in the context of pension increases (although the judges in QinetiQ and Arcardia did consider and dismiss that argument). 

As a result of Barnardo's we now have Court of Appeal authority upholding the reasoning in QinetiQ and Arcadia.  It is now difficult to argue that QinetiQ and Arcadia are inconsistent with the Court of Appeal decision in Aon v KPMG, when the Court of Appeal itself does not appear to think so.  Now the point is only likely to be decided differently if a case were to reach the Supreme Court.

One of the judges put the point succinctly:  "if a person has a right to 'A or B', one cannot say that he has an accrued right to A.  He has an accrued right to one or other of them".

It still remains possible to argue to the contrary.  For example, consider the situation of a pension scheme that has a power of amendment that is broad enough to allow retrospective amendments, as many schemes do.  That could be characterised as an "A or B" scenario: members have the right to, as a default, the benefits set out in the Rules, or as an alternative, to any lower benefit that may be imposed by retrospective exercise of the amendment power.  It is hardly likely that any court would hold that section 67 does not protect the "default" rights in that scenario, and so the "A or B" analysis is perhaps too simplistic to work in all situations.

Be that as it may, it now seems unlikely that there will be any change for the foreseeable future.  That does therefore remove one potential hurdle from employers and trustees that are looking to move away from RPI-based increases on past service.  

However, as with everything in this area, it depends on the correct construction of the actual words used in that particular scheme.

Practical points

Employers or trustees that are considering changing the index used for pension increases will need careful legal advice. The consistent theme that emerges from the case law is that the question of what is possible depends upon the correct construction of the rules of the individual scheme, and this is not always obvious.  Furthermore, it is not simply a matter of what the words on the page say, as the correct construction is also influenced by the remainder of the document as well as (up to a point) the background facts.

Even in the happy situation where the current rules have clear and unambiguous wording, in reality, the position may not be clear-cut.  It is not only the current rules that are relevant: for most schemes, the historical rules also need to be carefully reviewed.

It is therefore as well to get considered legal advice in advance, rather than to go ahead and be unprepared for the complaints that may follow from aggrieved members.

If after having carried out the above checks, it is established that a power to switch from RPI to CPI does exist, there remains the question of whose power it is to make that decision. If it is the trustees' power, would it be a proper use of the power to exercise it in this manner? Determining this requires a consideration of the scheme's circumstances and purposes, to be able to judge whether a switch would further the purposes of the scheme or be contrary to them. 

The difference in value between CPI and RPI increases can be immense, so there is a strong incentive from those looking to eliminate deficits to adopt CPI in place of RPI.  However, the corollary of that is that such a switch is likely to be resisted by members.  It is worth noting that CPI and RPI are not the only available indexes, and it remains to be seen whether there is a trend towards use of an index that sits somewhere in between them.

Unless parliament legislates for a statutory override to enable all schemes to switch to CPI (which many are calling for, but which would be politically quite a brave move), disputes over RPI/CPI are likely to continue.  Cases like Barnardo's at least help us to gain a better idea of how courts are likely to resolve such disputes.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Events from this Firm
14 Sep 2017, Seminar, Birmingham, UK

Has Cloud replaced traditional outsourcing models? We will compare cloud to outsourcing, consider whether they have effectively become the same thing for many solutions and assess some of the advantages and disadvantages of each model.

18 Sep 2017, Seminar, London, UK

Our annual event as part of the London Design Festival is now in its fifth year. We would be delighted if you are able to join us again.

21 Sep 2017, Seminar, London, UK

Has Cloud replaced traditional outsourcing models? We will compare cloud to outsourcing, consider whether they have effectively become the same thing for many solutions and assess some of the advantages and disadvantages of each model.

 
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.