R (BT Pension Scheme Trustees Limited & ors) v UK Statistics Authority and Chancellor of the Exchequer
[2022] EWHC 2265 (Admin)
06 Sep 2022
Share
The High Court has dismissed a challenge brought by a number of major pension funds to the decision by the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) to align the Retail Prices Index (RPI) with the Consumer Prices Index including owner occupiers’ housing costs (CPIH) from 2030, and the decision of the Chancellor not to award compensation to ‘legacy users’ of the RPI such as gilt-holders in the light of the change to the RPI.
The High Court has dismissed a challenge brought by a number of major pension funds to the decision by the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) to align the Retail Prices Index (RPI) with the Consumer Prices Index including owner occupiers’ housing costs (CPIH) from 2030, and the decision of the Chancellor not to award compensation to ‘legacy users’ of the RPI such as gilt-holders in the light of the change to the RPI.
On the Claimant’s judicial review, the Court: (1) rejected the argument that the change to the RPI fell outside the scope of the UKSA’s power to amend RPI under s.21 of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007; the UKSA’s decision involved making a fundamental change, rather than failing to compile, maintain and publish the RPI as required by s.21; (2) rejected a challenge on the basis that the UKSA was obliged to take account of the implications of its decision for legacy users, including equality impacts; the UKSA had acted properly in confining itself to considerations of “statistical matters”; (3) held that the Chancellor had not failed to take into account the interests of legacy users, and equality impacts, in deciding not to award compensation; and (4) rejected the claim that there had been a duty to consult on whether to change the RPI in principle, or on whether to grant compensation (both on the merits and on the basis that it was out of time).
In a related private law claim, the Claimants alleged that the decision to change the RPI meant that the RPI would “cease to be published” under the terms of certain gilts, such that the Chancellor would be obliged to select a replacement index. The Court also rejected this argument, considering that RPI would continue to be published in a modified form.
The judgment is available here.
Javan Herberg QC, Fraser Campbell and Daniel Cashman acted for the Claimants.
Sir James Eadie QC, Tom Hickman QC, David Lowe and Tom Leary acted for the Defendants.
