CH-2024-000293 - [2025] EWHC 2980 (Ch)

Fecha: 14-Nov-2025

The Grounds of Appeal

The Grounds of Appeal

23.

By s151(4) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, an appeal lies to the High Court against the Determination only on a point of law.

24.

The appellants appeal on the following grounds:

Ground 1 – The Ombudsman had no power to determine the complaints/disputes of Ms Y or Mr S, because they had referred those complaints or disputes to the Ombudsman too late.

ii)

Ground 2 – The Ombudsman was wrong in law to conclude that each Scheme was a single trust fund. He should have concluded that each Scheme comprised a number of separate sub-trusts, one for each member.

iii)

Ground 3 – The Ombudsman erred in law in his application of the test of dishonesty and so was wrong to make findings of dishonesty against the appellants.

iv)

Ground 4 – The Ombudsman should have found that Mr G either consented to transactions involving his funds that resulted in loss, or that Mr G was contributorily negligent in relation to those transactions, so as to reduce the liability of Gilbert Trading, Mr Kaigh and Brambles to Mr G.

25.

In the usual way, Marcus Smith J considered the application for permission to appeal by reference to (i) the Grounds of Appeal, (ii) an appeal bundle and (iii) a skeleton argument, that were before him when he granted permission to appeal on 25 February 2025. As I have noted, Ms Pope-Williams was instructed just a few days before the hearing and had no involvement in settling that material. The appellants have not made any application either to augment or vary that material. Ms Pope-Williams has, therefore, advanced the appeal by reference to the original Grounds of Appeal and the material available in the original appeal bundle. As will be seen, that made her task difficult in some respects since the appeal bundle did not contain all relevant documents.