Robins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Encyclopedia
Robins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2007) C-278/05 is a UK insolvency law
and labour law
case, concerning the protection of employees' salaries on their employer's insolvency.
The High Court asked the ECJ whether the member state needed to fund a scheme that had run out of money, and whether the UK had properly transposed the Directive. If not, should the UK incur liability?
However, Robins would gain benefits as low as 20% of entitlement, so the UK’s scheme under the Pensions Act 2004
section 286 (establishing the Financial Assistance Scheme) did not ‘protect’ workers like Robins within the meaning of art 8, so the provision was improperly implemented. A Member State's liability was contingent on a finding of manifest and grave disregard by that state for the limits set on its discretion, Brasserie du Pecheur SA v Germany. To answer what that meant the national court would have to take into account the clarity and precision of art 8 with regard to the level of protection required, as well as the measure of discretion left to the national authorities.
UK insolvency law
United Kingdom insolvency law deals with the insolvency of firms and individuals in the United Kingdom. The important statutes are the Insolvency Act 1986, as amended by the Enterprise Act 2002, as well as the Company Director Disqualification Act 1986 and the Companies Act 2006.Insolvency is a...
and labour law
Labour law
Labour law is the body of laws, administrative rulings, and precedents which address the legal rights of, and restrictions on, working people and their organizations. As such, it mediates many aspects of the relationship between trade unions, employers and employees...
case, concerning the protection of employees' salaries on their employer's insolvency.
Facts
Robins had been employed by a now insolvent company. He had a final salary pension. The company terminated the scheme and then told everyone there was not enough money to cover members’ benefits. They announced they would reduce benefits for members who had not yet started to receive pension payments. Robins claimed compensation from the Secretary of State for not providing the proper level of social protection under Directive 80/987 art 8. David Pannick QC was acting for the government.The High Court asked the ECJ whether the member state needed to fund a scheme that had run out of money, and whether the UK had properly transposed the Directive. If not, should the UK incur liability?
Judgment
Judge Timmermans in the ECJ held that the member state did not require pension funds should be fully guaranteed, because the member state could oblige insurers to buy insurance.However, Robins would gain benefits as low as 20% of entitlement, so the UK’s scheme under the Pensions Act 2004
Pensions Act 2004
The Pensions Act 2004 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to improve the running of pension schemes.-Background:In the years following the introduction of the Pensions Act 1995, it was widely perceived that it was failing to offer the protection to pension scheme members that had...
section 286 (establishing the Financial Assistance Scheme) did not ‘protect’ workers like Robins within the meaning of art 8, so the provision was improperly implemented. A Member State's liability was contingent on a finding of manifest and grave disregard by that state for the limits set on its discretion, Brasserie du Pecheur SA v Germany. To answer what that meant the national court would have to take into account the clarity and precision of art 8 with regard to the level of protection required, as well as the measure of discretion left to the national authorities.