We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Last month the Pensions Regulator was finally able to
publish its decision on the Desmond & Sons case.
The delay in the Pensions Regulator's publication was caused
by a confidentiality clause in relation to the Upper Tribunal's
judgment. Once that restriction was lifted and the Upper Tribunal
published its conclusion earlier last month, the Pensions Regulator
was also free to publish its own decision.
In February 2004 Desmond & Sons became aware that its sole
customer, Marks & Spencer, was planning to terminate their
relationship. Following this news Desmond & Sons entered into a
members' voluntary liquidation. The Regulator believed the aim
of the reorganisation was to exploit a loophole because it allowed
the employer to be treated as an insolvent company, meaning its
section 75 debt would be calculated on the less generous MFR basis.
Indeed, there was no deficit on the MFR basis at that time and the
employer paid just £4m into the scheme in May 2004, in the
meantime the targets are said to have received in the region of
£17.2m from the reorganisation.
In April 2010 the Determinations Panel ordered the Pensions
Regulator to issue two contribution notices against Desmond &
Sons owners Denis Desmond and Donal Gordon. Those two contributions
notices equated to just £1m. At the same time the
Determinations Panel said it would not be reasonable to issue
contribution notices against a further two ex-shareholders of
Desmond & Sons Ltd.
The Trustees wanted to challenge the Determinations Panel's
decision and took the case to the Upper Tribunal, claiming a
contribution notice should have been issued against a third person,
increasing the total value of the three contribution notices to
£17m.
The two parties who were subject to contribution notices also
appealed to the Upper Tribunal, saying the notices should either
not have been issued or should have been valued at zero rather than
a total of £1m.
In a preliminary hearing in February 2011 the Upper Tribunal struck
out the claim against the third person because the six year time
limit on the exercise of the Regulator's contribution notice
powers had been exceeded stating that "the Tribunal cannot
enlarge the Regulator's authority". Limitation periods can
often be the downfall of legitimate claims and the Regulator, akin
to claimants, must remain minded of the time restrictions for
taking action.
The Upper Tribunal, did however, remove the £1m cap of the
first two contrbution notices. This was on the basis that the
contribution notices, issued during the period in which the
determination could be referred to the Tribunal, were issued
prematurely. We await the substantive appeal to the Upper Tribunal
with keen interest.
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.
Employers who fail to inform and consult employees in connection with a TUPE transfer may have to pay a penalty of 13 weeks’ gross pay to all affected employees.
Many employers will have experienced the situation whereby a senior employee leaves the company and shortly afterwards begins to solicit key clients in breach of his/her restrictive covenants.
Failure to follow the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures will usually increase the risk of a dismissal being found to be procedurally unfair and can result in increased compensation being payable to a dismissed employee.
BIS has published an updated indicative timetable of the planned key dates for the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 and the introduction of financial penalties for employers who breach workers rights will now not be in October 2013.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Employment Tribunal System – How Will The Changes Affect You? (Video Content)
