- Court of Appeal upholds ruling that PPF compensation cap amounts to unlawful age discrimination (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Board of the PPF v Hughes)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Compensation cap: DWP’s appeal
- PPF’s interim scheme: PPF’s appeal
- Lifetime Payments Test
- Case details
Pensions analysis: The Court of Appeal has unanimously upheld the High Court’s first instance decision that the statutory cap on the compensation payable by the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) to pension scheme members who have not achieved normal pension age at the date of their employer’s insolvency amounted to unlawful age discrimination by treating them less favourably than those who had waited until their retirement date and were not subject to the cap. However, the court overturned the decision of the lower court that the PPF’s approach to calculating compensation for retirees and survivors did not comply with the 2018 ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Hampshire v Board of the PPF (C‑17/17) that Article 8 of the EU Insolvency Directive requires Member States to guarantee to each individual employee compensation corresponding to at least 50% of the value of his or her accrued pension entitlement in the event of the employer’s insolvency. Written by Thomas Seymour, barrister at Wilberforce Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial