Skip to main content
CLOSE

Charities

Close

Corporate and Commercial

Close

Employment and Immigration

Close

Fraud and Investigations

Close

Individuals

Close

Litigation

Close

Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration

Close

Public Law

Close

Real Estate

Close

Restructuring and Insolvency

Close

Energy

Close

Entrepreneurs

Close

Private Wealth

Close

Real Estate

Close

Tech and Innovation

Close

Transport and Infrastructure

Close
Home / News and Insights / News / TPR success in Box Clever case

TV rental business, Box Clever, was created as a joint venture between Granada (now ITV) and Thorn (now Carmelite).

The Box Clever business was later sold and administrative receivers were subsequently appointed over Box Clever companies.

The Pensions Regulator (“TPR”) issued Financial Support Directives (“FSDs”) against five ITV companies in relation to the Box Clever defined benefit pension scheme. ITV referred the determinations to the Upper Tribunal.

The Tribunal decided in favour of TPR. It held that the appointment of administrative receivers did not break the chain of control between ITV and Box Clever and, therefore, the ITV companies fell within the scope of the FSD regime.

The Tribunal rejected ITV’s argument that TPR could not take into account events that occurred before the FSD legislation (the Pensions Act 2004) came into force in assessing whether it would be reasonable to issue an FSD. The Tribunal adopted a purposive interpretation of the legislation, noting that the purpose of the legislation is to create a “rescue framework” for pension schemes in deficit and that the objectives could not be met if TPR could not take into account events that occurred prior to the legislation coming into force.

The Tribunal also held that moral hazard was not a requirement for an FSD and that there was an “important distinction between blame and responsibility”.

This is the first time that an anti-avoidance matter has been considered by the Upper Tribunal at a substantive hearing.

The decision clarifies that FSDs can be based on events taking place before the legislation came into effect, going back an indefinite period of time. However, given the amount of time that has already passed since the legislation came into effect, this point is unlikely to be relevant in many cases.

The case also suggests that the legislation may be given a purposive interpretation, which could make it harder for other challenges in the future to succeed.

ITV has been granted permission to appeal. The dispute is likely to rumble on.

Related Articles

Our Offices

London
One Bartholomew Close
London
EC1A 7BL

Cambridge
50/60 Station Road
Cambridge
CB1 2JH

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
Grosvenor House, Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

 

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
Grosvenor House, Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

  • Lexcel
  • CYBER ESSENTIALS PLUS

© BDB Pitmans 2024. One Bartholomew Close, London EC1A 7BL - T +44 (0)345 222 9222

Our Services

Charities chevron
Corporate and Commercial chevron
Employment and Immigration chevron
Fraud and Investigations chevron
Individuals chevron
Litigation chevron
Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration chevron
Public Law chevron
Real Estate chevron
Restructuring and Insolvency chevron

Sectors and Groups

Private Wealth chevron
Real Estate chevron
Transport and Infrastructure chevron