The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) and Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will appeal court judgments relating to the way the lifeboat fund pays compensation.
It was confirmed last week that an appeal had been lodged against an Administrative Court judgment in June that said compensation caps amounted to age discrimination where those under normal pension age would receive lower benefits than pensioner members.
It followed a landmark ruling at the European Court of Justice in 2018 where PPF compensation was deemed unlawful where it amounted to less than 50% of members' original benefits.
Following a judicial review involving 25 claimants from four affected pension schemes, the court said differential treatment was "not objectively justifiable" and that non-pensioner members should receive compensation "without reduction by reason of the application of a cap".
Those affected could seek to recover arrears for a period of up to six years. In one example, Paul Hughes of the Heath Lambert scheme had seen a 75% reduction to his entitlement due to the application of the cap and the downgrading or removal of inflation protection.
The PPF said it would need to alter its methodology if the judgment, which did not accord to its reading of the Insolvency Directive, was upheld. It is now seeking permission to appeal on the basis of the approach it should take, as well as how survivors' benefits should be dealt with.
The lifeboat fund's appeal was lodged on 20 August with the Court of Appeal needing to grant permission. In the meantime, it is also seeking permission to delay implementing any changes needed as a result of the June judgment pending the outcome of the appeal.
Pensions Action Group member Terry Monk, who has been affected by the PPF's cap, said: "How much longer will this drag on? It is 11 years since Justice Henderson in Independent Trustee Services v Hope raised the question of compliance with the Insolvency Directive and, personally, it is now 16 years since the Financial Assistance Scheme was introduced and 17 years since I should have had my Bradstock pension.
"Will I, and others, live long enough to receive and enjoy the money we are owed?"
The long-running HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) v Parry & Ors case, otherwise known as the Staveley case, has concluded Staveley’s actions gave rise to an inheritance tax bill, bringing clarity around pension transfers or switches made in ill-health.
In the second feature of a three-part series, Iain Clacher and Con Keating look back at the UK’s defined benefit universe, exploring how the Maxwell scandal impacted scheme funding regulations.
The Pensions Regulator (TPR) chief executive Charles Counsell has written to Work and Pensions Committee (WPC) chairman Stephen Timms responding to questions over how the watchdog handled issues around the Norton Motorcycles pension schemes.
Chris Edwards-Earl and Sue Moore explore how the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 will affect pension schemes.
More than half of respondents to a Professional Pensions survey would like to see the government launch a small pots taskforce to stop them undermining the success of auto-enrolment (AE).