Summary
The Supreme Court rejected the claim of insurance employees retiring under the 2004 special voluntary retirement scheme to five additional notional years for pension. The scheme expressly excluded that benefit and had to be applied as a package. Observations in an earlier judgment concerning retrospective pay revision did not confer a contrary entitlement. The appeals were dismissed, with clarification that ex gratia remained payable at the lower of the two amounts specified in the scheme.
Issues
- Whether retirees under the 2004 special scheme could claim additional notional pension service available under the 1995 pension scheme.
- Whether observations in earlier pay-revision litigation overrode the express exclusion.
Provisions considered
- Clauses 5, 6(1)(c) and 8(xiv), General Insurance Employees’ Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004The package expressly excluded five added years for pension, fixed ex gratia at the lower specified amount and provided full and final settlement subject to clause 5(2). Its terms controlled the entitlement. (¶¶ 5, 6, 15, 19, 20, 22, 23)
- Paragraph 30(5), General Insurance (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995The conditional added-service benefit for voluntary retirement under that paragraph could not be imported into the special scheme in the face of its express exclusion. (¶¶ 3, 4, 6, 14)
Held
- The special scheme’s statutory character precluded adding or subtracting terms through a supposed concession. Any alteration for the retirees’ benefit required the prescribed formal notification. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- The earlier litigation decided retrospective pay revision. Observations about added pension service on an issue outside that dispute, without a specific direction, did not grant benefits contrary to the scheme. (¶¶ 7, 8, 15, 21)
- Retirees accepting the special scheme could claim its promised package but could not combine its favourable terms with benefits expressly excluded from another scheme. (¶¶ 20, 22, 23)
- The High Court’s observations suggesting exclusion of the lower-amount limitation for ex gratia were clarified: clause 5(1) expressly retained that limitation. Subject to that clarification, the appeals were dismissed with parties bearing their own costs. (¶¶ 19, 24)
Result
Appeals dismissed, subject to clarification of the High Court’s observations on clause 5(1): the statutory lower-of-two-amounts ex gratia term remains binding. Parties to bear their own costs.