The Pensions Regulator has been successful in a legal challenge regarding an anti-avoidance case concerning the Silentnight Group defined benefit pension scheme.

On 10 January 2017, the Administrative Court announced that a judicial review is not the appropriate arena in which to resolve issues raised by the pension scheme claimants.

In May 2011, Silentnight was acquired by the HIG Group, taking with it the company’s defined benefit pension scheme which was in deficit.

TPR issued a Warning Notice informing claimants of its intention to seek £17.16m of contribution notices. Following this, TPR then issued a second Warning Notice in June 2016 explaining its intention to seek contribution notices of a sum equivalent to the scheme’s entire deficit.

Claimants from the firm challenged TPR’s second Warning Notice decision stating it was unlawful. The hearing on this was fast-tracked at TPR’s request.

The scheme currently remains in deficit and is likely to fall into the Pension Protection Fund if it continues to be unable to meet its liabilities.

The court maintained the view that there was nothing exceptional about the claimants’ challenge which would necessitate a judicial review. Instead the claimants should come to a resolution through the regulator’s Determinations Panel and the Upper Tribunal if a reference is made.

The anti-avoidance case now anticipates a receipt of representation from the claimants and others directly involved with the second Warning Notice.

TPR general counsel and director of legal services, Anthony Raymond commented: “The judge agreed with our submission that these issues should not be resolved by the Administrative Court. We will defend what we consider to be unfounded judicial review applications and do all we can to ensure that these do not derail or delay the resolution of our cases before the Determinations Panel.”

Share Story: