We have previously commented on legislation introduced as part of the process to amalgamate the offices of the Financial Services Ombudsman and the Pensions Ombudsman (see post of 27 May 2016 below). The decision to amalgamate the offices was made by the Government in 2013 following a recommendation from the OECD. Two draft bills (The
What is the Omega Pharma case?
The Omega Pharma case has confirmed that the scheme’s governing documentation and not the Pensions Act minimum funding standard determine the employer’s liability to contribute to defined benefit schemes on wind-up.
On 25 July 2014, Mr Justice Moriarty in the Commercial Court handed down judgment in the case of Holloway & Ors v Damianus BV & Ors  IEHC 383 and found in favour of the trustees of the Omega Pharma defined benefit scheme in their claim for deficit contributions against the scheme’s employers. The trustees succeeded in obtaining judgment in the amount of €2,439,193.56 (inclusive of interest) against the employers. On appeal, the newly established Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in favour of the trustees (Holloway & ors -v- Damianus BV & ors  IECA 19).
If the Element Six case (Greene & Ors v Coady & Ors  IEHC 38) was the most important pensions law case for trustees in the recent past, the Omega Pharma case was not far behind. The Omega Pharma case is also particularly relevant to employers who operate or participate in defined benefit schemes. However, a number of key issues remain unanswered.
On Friday last, Justice Moriarty delivered his judgment in the case of Holloway & Ors v Damianus BV & Ors (Record No. 2013/6239P).
This case arose out of a contribution demand issued by the trustees of a defined benefit pension scheme in 2012. The demand was issued following the service by the principal employer…
The Office of the Pensions Ombudsman was first established in 2003 under the Pensions (Amendment) Act, 2002. According to the Ombudsman’s most recent annual report, over the past 10 years the Office has received approximately 10,000 queries and opened over 5,000 detailed complaint files. In 2012 alone, 601 new complaint files were opened representing an increase of 24% on the files opened in 2011.
Under the Pensions Act, 1990, any party who disagrees or disputes the Ombudsman’s determination of the investigation is entitled to bring an appeal to the High Court within 21 days of the determination. In line with the increase in the number of complaints being made to the Ombudsman, we are also seeing an increase in the number of appeals being brought to the High Court against his determinations. Most recently the trustees of the Irish Blood Transfusion Service Superannuation Fund appealed a determination of the Ombudsman in the case of Willis & Ors v Pensions Ombudsman and anor.
In that case, the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Kearns, made the following points: