The Pitfalls of Retrospectively Amending the Terms of Pension Schemes
In the recent case of BIC U.K. Limited v. Burgess  EWCA Civ 806 ("BIC"), the Court of Appeal offered further clarity on the ability to retrospectively amend pension scheme rules. The Court of Appeal overturned the previous High Court decision finding that increases to pensions in payment in this instance had not been validly introduced.
Under many pension schemes, the rules expressly allow for retrospective amendment. However, in the absence of an express power, it is necessary to demonstrate the existence of an implied power if retrospective amendments are to be permitted. Any argument for the existence of a power must be constructed from the terms of the trust deed and rules, taking any restrictions on amendments into account.
EAT clarification on determining 'long-term' nature of a disability
In Nissa v. Waverly Education Foundation, the claimant, a science teacher, suffered from Fibromyalgia. She had suffered from the condition from December 2015, and resigned effective from 31 August 2016. She brought a claim for disability discrimination claiming her impairment caused her to suffer a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her ability to carry out day-today activities.