Case tracker—judgments handed down in 2019—pensions
Case tracker—judgments handed down in 2019—pensions

The following Pensions practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Case tracker—judgments handed down in 2019—pensions
  • Auto-enrolment—fines against employer
  • R (The Pensions Regulator) v Workchain Ltd
  • Discrimination
  • Miller v Ministry of Justice
  • The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice v McCloud; The Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Welsh Ministers and Others v Sargeant
  • Safeway Ltd v Newton
  • R (on the application of Delve and another) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
  • Langford v Secretary of State for Defence
  • R (on the application of Carter) v Chelmsford Crown Court
  • More...

The entries in this tracker are organised by topic. These topics are listed in the Table of Contents (to the left of the page).

Auto-enrolment—fines against employer

R (The Pensions Regulator) v Workchain Ltd

Case information:
  1. Full name: R (The Pensions Regulator) v Workchain Limited

  2. Citation: [2019] EWCA Crim 1422, [2019] All ER (D) 95 (Aug)

  3. Court: Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

  4. Judgment date: 31 July 2019

  5. Representation:

    1. Mr K J Hegarty QC appeared on behalf of Workchain Limited

    2. The Crown neither appeared nor was represented

  6. News Analysis: Fine reduced for employer which opted workers out of pension scheme (R v Workchain Ltd)

Key take-away

The Pensions Regulator had originally brought a prosecution in the Crown Court against Workchain Limited (Workchain) (a national recruitment agency) for unauthorised access to computer material, contrary to section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (CMA 1990), on the basis that, through its directors, it had instructed managers and staff to do whatever was necessary to get workers to opt out of a pension scheme under the auto-enrolment regime.

The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, having considered harm and culpability in general and in the particular circumstances, held that a fine of £200,000 levelled by the Crown Court had been manifestly excessive and substituted a fine of £100,000. In particular, the sentencing judge had not referred to giving credit to

Popular documents