Steven Anthony Lefort v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 926 (TC)
Martin Laker v The Commissioners for HMRC
27 June 2024
[2024] UKFTT 568 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
A doctor's pension protection depended on how 'year' was defined in his pension rules. The court said 'year' meant a full 12 months, even if there were gaps in his work, leading to his protection being removed.
Key Facts
- •Dr. Martin Laker appealed HMRC's revocation of his Fixed Protection 2012 certificate.
- •The appeal hinged on the definition of 'year' in the context of pensionable employment.
- •Dr. Laker argued 'year' meant 12 consecutive months, while HMRC argued it meant 365 aggregated days.
- •Dr. Laker had periods of opting out and back into the NHS pension scheme.
- •The dispute centered on whether his 'final year's pensionable pay' should be calculated using consecutive or aggregated months.
Legal Principles
Statutory interpretation involves an objective assessment of the meaning a reasonable legislature would convey.
R (oao) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 3
The meaning of ordinary words in legislation is found in their ordinary usage, not solely in dictionary definitions.
HMRC v Dolphin Drilling Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1
When interpreting legislation, the context of the entire regulations must be considered.
Regulation C1(6) and Regulation L4 of the National Health Service Pension Scheme Regulations 1995
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found that 'year' in Regulation C1(6) means a combination of periods totaling 12 months, working backward from the date Dr. Laker ceased pensionable employment. HMRC's interpretation was deemed consistent with the context of the regulations as a whole, including Regulation L4. Dr. Laker's calculation was found to be slightly over the threshold.