Re: Thank you to people posting.

Posted by Brian Marks on 11 December 2000 at 14:34:45:

In Reply to: Re: Thank you to people posting. posted by Tally_ho_us on 06 December 2000 at 20:06:19:

This is about how UK law sees the points Tally-ho-us commented on.

I have now read the Barclays appeal judgment. It doesn't have
any copyright notice or embargo on it anywhere so I presume it
is OK to show an extract:

"The establishment of the money purchase scheme involved the
setting up of what was, within the overall scheme, a scheme
quite separate from the final salary scheme and to which
different considerations applied. Those who joined the money
purchase scheme severed their connection with the final salary
scheme, transferred to a new scheme and enjoyed the benefit of a
payment of the sum representing the actuarial value of their
benefits in the final salary scheme accrued until [the date of
the transfer from the final salary scheme to the money purchase
scheme]. Those who elected not to transfer retained their
interest in the assets which remained subject to the final salary
scheme. It seems to me to follow that, to the extent that the
surplus in the latter scheme was thereafter used to fund the
employer's contributions to the money purchase scheme, the money
purchase scheme members were thereby improperly or unfairly
subsidised by the final salary scheme because the surplus
remained held on the trusts of the final salary scheme"

Does that sound reasoned and widely applicable to the case where
the same set of trustees covers two sets of retirees?

It does to me. Sadly, that extract is a quote from a different
case and this latest judge did not give it enough weight to find
in accordance with it.

Another interesting slant: how many employees know the difference
between a company saying they will "pay contributions into" a
plan and saying they will "make contributions into" a plan?
Apparently, if the company says the former they have to use their
own money, if the latter they can use trust money.