黑洞社区

Gleeds is considering mounting a legal claim against its former pension adviser Aon, after the construction consultant lost a High Court case this month that could increase its pension liability by up to 拢45m.

The case centred on 30 changes made to the firm鈥檚 pension scheme from 1991 to cut its costs to Gleeds, including by reducing accrual rates and member contributions, and later closing the scheme to any future accrual.

However, Mr Justice Newey ruled on 15 April that 鈥淕leeds鈥� attempts to contain the costs of the scheme will have been largely ineffective鈥�, as the deeds to change the scheme 鈥渉ave not been validly executed鈥�, following a legal challenge from a number of the scheme鈥檚 members.

The fault lay in failing to get the partners鈥� signatures on the deeds witnessed correctly.

The judgment said: 鈥淲ere that to mean that the documents are all ineffective, the scheme鈥檚 deficit on an ongoing basis could be increased by some 拢45m.鈥�

Mr Justice Newey said his judgment would have 鈥渟erious implications鈥� for the scheme and Gleeds, with some employees who joined the scheme during the period technically rendered no longer members, while other members 鈥渟tand to receive [鈥�] a windfall鈥�.

Mr Justice Newey said while some Gleeds employees were no longer technically members they would have acquired rights as a result of contributions to the scheme.

Gleeds declined to confirm how much the increased liability will cost it in terms of annual servicing, or its total pension liability.

But a source close to the case said Gleeds was seeking legal advice as to whether it can mount a legal challenge against Aon, its pension adviser when the deeds were signed, and said the firm believes its liability and servicing costs will not go up until any dispute with Aon is resolved.

Some members, 103, are not affected by the judgment as they had agreed to switch from final salary benefits to a money purchase scheme in return for a one-off salary increase, which overrode the scheme rules.

A Gleeds spokesperson said: 鈥淭he judgement is focused on a technical issue regarding the preparation of documentation by professional advisers previously associated with the scheme some years ago.

鈥淭he judge has simply decided how the rules of the pension scheme should be applied and has not given a view on financial details which will be the subject of further discussion with the trustees and their advisers in due course.

鈥淕leeds are also in discussion with previous pension advisers regarding their responsibility for the documentation that has unfortunately been judged as being inappropriate.鈥�

Aon declined to comment.