Chittoo v British Telecommunications Plc

On an appeal from a Pensions Ombudsman determination, the court’s jurisdiction is confined to points of law. Maladministration concerns the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision. An employer considering medical early retirement is not generally required to obtain medical evidence which the member has been invited to provide. A decision will not be perverse where a reasonable decision-maker, addressing the correct question and considering the available evidence, could have reached it. Eligibility for medical retirement falls to be assessed by reference to the member’s condition when employment ended, not a later condition.

The appellant, a member of the BT Pension Scheme, challenged BT’s refusal to grant her medical early-retirement benefits under Rule 5.1 of the scheme. The Pensions Ombudsman investigated her complaint and dispute with BT and determined that BT had not acted improperly and that medical retirement was not appropriate.

The appellant appealed to the High Court under section 151(4) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, alleging that BT’s decision was perverse and that BT should have obtained a further report from her consultant neurologist. The central issues were whether BT’s decision-making process involved maladministration, whether its conclusion was legally perverse, and the date by reference to which eligibility had to be assessed.

1. Appeal and extension of time. The appellant was granted a short extension of time because the delay caused no prejudice to BT. The appeal was then considered on its merits and dismissed.
2. Scope of maladministration. Applying Legal & General Assurance Society Limited v Pensions Ombudsman [2000] 2 All ER 577, maladministration concerns the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision. The Ombudsman therefore did not err in law by examining whether BT’s process was improper.
3. Medical evidence. BT had told the appellant that it would consider medical evidence on which she wished to rely. The onus was therefore on her to produce such evidence. BT had no obligation to approach her consultant neurologist itself, particularly since the relevant medical views had been referred to in the general practitioner’s report and were available for consideration. There was no maladministration.
4. Perversity. The question was whether BT’s conclusion was one which a reasonable person, addressing the correct issue in a proper manner, could adopt. The medical evidence substantially agreed on the appellant’s past history and present condition, but differed on whether incapacity was likely to be permanent over the 17 years until normal pension age. Dr Miller evaluated the competing views and BT accepted her recommendation. BT’s decision was not perverse, and the Ombudsman was not perverse in reaching the same conclusion.
5. Relevant date. The assessment had properly focused on the appellant’s condition when her employment ended, rather than on her condition at a later date. The court declined to determine a further argument based on the dismissal and subsequent Employment Tribunal proceedings because it had not been raised before the Ombudsman and the necessary factual material was unavailable.

• High Court (Chancery Division): The court extended time for the appeal and dismissed the appeal from the Pensions Ombudsman’s determination dated 27 March 2007.