IBM v Dalgleish—the remedies judgment [ARCHIVED]
IBM v Dalgleish—the remedies judgment [ARCHIVED]

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

  • IBM v Dalgleish—the remedies judgment [ARCHIVED]
  • What conclusions did Warren J reach in the remedies judgment?
  • What was left undecided in the judgment?
  • Further judgments to deal with outstanding matters
  • Appeal proceedings
  • What are the implications of the remedies judgment for employers, trustees and schemes?

This Practice Note has been archived. It looks at the further judgment of the High Court in the case of IBM v Dalgleish, handed down on 20 February 2015 (commonly known as the 'remedies judgment'), in which Warren J ruled on the remedies available to members for the breaches of duty established in the main judgment. In particular, this Practice Note looks at:

  1. the conclusions reached in the remedies judgment

  2. what was left undecided

  3. the further judgments held on 18 and 19 May 2015 to deal with some of the outstanding matters left over from the main judgment and the remedies judgment

  4. the pending appeal proceedings, and

  5. the implications of the remedies judgment for employers, trustees and schemes

In the main judgment of IBM v Dalgleish, Warren J held that changes made by IBM to its employees' defined benefit (DB) pension arrangements gave rise to a breach by IBM of both its duty of good faith in a pensions context (referred to as the 'Imperial duty' in the judgment) and of its contractual duty of trust and confidence.

However, on 3 August 2017, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of Warren J at first instance that changes made by IBM to its employees' pension arrangements gave rise to a breach by IBM of its duty of trust and confidence, ruling that