Roy Anthony Thomas v Southwark Council
[2024] EWHC 2739 (Ch)
Lee Andrew v Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust
28 November 2022
[2022] EWHC 2992 (Ch)
High Court
A man got a wrong pension estimate before retiring due to ill health. The Ombudsman said he would have retired anyway, so no extra money. The court agreed about the estimate, but said the Ombudsman should have considered if the man could have gotten a different job instead, sending it back for another look.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Andrew, a specialist orthotic technician, retired on ill-health retirement (IHR) in February 2018 after receiving an inaccurate IHR pension estimate from the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust.
- •The inaccurate estimate was based on an inflated figure for pensionable pay.
- •Mr. Andrew complained to the Pensions Ombudsman, claiming financial loss due to the inaccurate estimate.
- •The Ombudsman awarded £1000 for distress but rejected the claim for financial loss, finding Mr. Andrew would have retired regardless due to his health.
- •Mr. Andrew appealed to the High Court.
Legal Principles
Appeal on a point of law against the Pensions Ombudsman's determination lies to the High Court under section 151(4) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993.
Pension Schemes Act 1993, section 151(4)
The Ombudsman's role is investigative, not a trial; the decision to hold an oral hearing is challengeable only if the Ombudsman exceeded the reasonable ambit of disagreement.
Webber v Department for Education [2014] EWHC 4240 (Ch)
An appeal on a point of law can encompass illegality, procedural impropriety, or irrationality, including misdirection on facts.
Runa Begum v Tower Hamlets LBC [2003] 2 AC 430, Wakelin v Read [2000] Pens LR 319
The duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 extends to offering alternative roles without competitive processes if reasonable.
Archibald v Fife Council [2004] ICR 954
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed on ground 1 (reliance): The Ombudsman's conclusion that Mr. Andrew would have retired at the same time regardless of the estimate had sufficient evidential basis.
The Ombudsman considered the possibility of intermediate retirement dates and relevant factors. While a later retirement date could have yielded a better financial outcome, it wasn't inevitable given Mr. Andrew's health and the Trust's potential actions.
Appeal allowed on ground 2 (redeployment): The Ombudsman erred in law by equating the possibility of competitive redeployment with the employer's duty to make reasonable adjustments.
The Ombudsman's rejection of redeployment was based on the availability of competitive applications, not on the employer's duty to make reasonable adjustments; this is a material difference.
The case was remitted to the Ombudsman for reconsideration of financial loss considering the possibility of redeployment due to the employer's reasonable adjustments duty.
The court found the Ombudsman erred in his assessment of the relevance of the employer's obligation to make reasonable adjustments in relation to redeployment