Abstract
AbstractThe 1993 Jubilee Lecture considered two fundamental questions addressed in the report of the Pension Law Review Committee: when an employee joins an occupational pension scheme, what should the law consider to be the fundamental pension promise; and how should that promise be protected? The factors affecting the employee's expectations are examined in the light of the pension promise, and the conclusion drawn that certain expectations relating to accrued rights should be protected by law, although the employer should be able to control its financial commitments as to future service. The status of surplus, in both an ongoing scheme and in the event of a wind-up, is also considered, and recommendations made as to the use of a surplus if not already dealt with by the scheme rules. The two principal forms of protection for the pension promise which were recommended by the Pension Law Review Committee are discussed; firstly, the introduction of a minimum solvency standard, backed up by tighter rules for the prompt payment of contributions and by enhanced monitoring and reporting requirements for scheme auditors and actuaries; and secondly, the setting up of a statutory compensation fund to cover a deficit in the event of fraud or theft, to be financed by a post-event levy on schemes.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference14 articles.
1. (11) HMSO. (1993). Report. §§4.1.8–4.1.14.
2. (8) Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, s. 3(2)(b). The E.C. Unfair Contract Terms Directive 1993 is broader still.
3. (6) Chanter v Hopkins (1838). 4 M. & W. 399, per Lord Abinger at p. 404.
4. (14) Bierce defined litigation as a machine you go into as a pig and come out of as a sausage.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献