The High Court has dealt with the criteria the Court would use to reverse a determination of the Pensions Ombudsman.
Under the legislation, the determination of the Ombudsman is final and binding on the parties and is subject to an appeal to the courts only on a point of law. In the case of Macaulay v Pensions Ombudsman [1998] PLR 211, Mr. Justice Ferris was dealing with an appeal against a determination by the Ombudsman. He examined the first issue in dispute and defined it as essentially a question of fact.
That being the case, as he explained: "I can only interfere with that decision as involving an error of law if I am satisfied that there was no evidence to support it or if it could be said to be an inference drawn from other facts found by the Ombudsman which point inexorably to the opposite conclusion as being the only one which a properly directed tribunal could reach".
On the evidence, Mr. Justice Ferris was clear that there was no case for reversing the Ombudsman's finding of fact. There was a second issue which Mr. Justice Ferris judged to be "a mixed question of fact and law". The facts were not in dispute but the legal conclusion to be drawn from those facts was one on which Justice Ferris judged he could properly reverse the Ombudsman's view if he thought it was wrong, but added "However I have no doubt that it was right". He dismissed the appeal.
For further information please contact Jane Marshall, e-mail: Click Contact Link , 7 Devonshire Square, Cutlers Gardens, London EC2M 4YH, UK, Tel: + 44 171 655 1000
This article was first published in the Winter 98/99 Hammond Suddards Pensions Newsletter
The information and opinions contained in this article are provided by Hammond Suddards. They should not be applied to any particular set of facts without appropriate legal or other professional advice.
Under the legislation, the determination of the Ombudsman is final and binding on the parties and is subject to an appeal to the courts only on a point of law. In the case of Macaulay v Pensions Ombudsman [1998] PLR 211, Mr. Justice Ferris was dealing with an appeal against a determination by the Ombudsman. He examined the first issue in dispute and defined it as essentially a question of fact.
That being the case, as he explained: "I can only interfere with that decision as involving an error of law if I am satisfied that there was no evidence to support it or if it could be said to be an inference drawn from other facts found by the Ombudsman which point inexorably to the opposite conclusion as being the only one which a properly directed tribunal could reach".
On the evidence, Mr. Justice Ferris was clear that there was no case for reversing the Ombudsman's finding of fact. There was a second issue which Mr. Justice Ferris judged to be "a mixed question of fact and law". The facts were not in dispute but the legal conclusion to be drawn from those facts was one on which Justice Ferris judged he could properly reverse the Ombudsman's view if he thought it was wrong, but added "However I have no doubt that it was right". He dismissed the appeal.
For further information please contact Jane Marshall, e-mail: Click Contact Link , 7 Devonshire Square, Cutlers Gardens, London EC2M 4YH, UK, Tel: + 44 171 655 1000
This article was first published in the Winter 98/99 Hammond Suddards Pensions Newsletter
The information and opinions contained in this article are provided by Hammond Suddards. They should not be applied to any particular set of facts without appropriate legal or other professional advice.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.