Casenote Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Casenote - Case Study Example Though this judgement does not lay the law but has only followed precedents in general, it still stresses on the point that the findings of the Ombudsman are binding and also given the fact that the number of people affected by this judgement are many, it attempts to ensure that people are not left without any remedy by seeking reconsideration of the Recommendation by the Parliament. In the course of this case note we shall understand the facts of the case, the law that governed the Occupational Pension Scheme in the light of the precedents and also the discuss the judgement as to its correctness. The broad facts of the case are that the four claimants had individually believing in the information distributed by way of official government publication and also believing in their employer's word invested in the Occupational Pension Scheme only to land in financial crisis after retirement because of winding up. The companies of three out of the four claimants wound up and as a result they could not get more than a fraction of their pension amount, while in the case of the fourth, the pension scheme wound up thereby throwing him into financial crisis. The situation of the fourth claimant is worse as he is not even eligible for the Financial Assistance Scheme promoted by the government as his company is still solvent. Given such a situation, Members of Parliament had made various complaints to the Ombudsman regarding pension losses alleging firstly that the rights of pensioners were not protected, secondly that policy decisions were taken without referring to relevant evidence, th irdly relevant information being distributed was largely misleading material and lastly public bodies were causing unreasonable delay in winding up schemes. Based on these four allegations, the Ombudsman conducted an in depth investigation and relying on a government pamphlet disseminating pension information, submitted a detailed report before the Parliament consisting of findings and recommendations, wherein she held the State guilty of maladministration. In consequence the Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) considered her report along with the oral evidence presented by her and rejected her report completely except for one point. This rejection of the Parliament is the subject matter of the judicial review of the present case. Legal Background Prior to discussing the rationale behind the judgement, it is important to understand the legal background. It has been seen that traditionally pension schemes were governed by the law of trusts but later in 1995 the Pensions Act2 was enacted which dealt with occupational pensions. This Act brought about the establishment of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority and also laid down the rules, regulations, rights and obligations of trustees and also introduced the concept of Minimum Funding Requirement or "MFR"3. The Act also stated that the assets and liabilities of a particular scheme should be equal at all times so that the assets balance the liabilities in case of any