• A Pension Primer ~ In Plain English; Go Here;

• Opinion No: 1 ~ The Case for ; Go Here;

• Opinion No: 2 ~ The Case for ; Go Here;

• Opinion No: 3 ~ The Case for ; Go Here;

• Opinion No: 4 ~ The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman’s disastrous ‘Determination’; Go Here;

• Opinions No: 5 & 6 ~ ‘Field of Opposing Forces’; against and for; Go Here; 

• Opinion  No: 7: ~ The Vos & Fancourt Follies:
Fancourt LJ ’s Judgement was simply and brutally excoriated in a ‘Master’s Class’ presented pro bono throughout by Barrister Mr. John Merlin Copplestone–Bruce, Life Member ~ Inner Temple.
Understanding the ‘Meanings of Words’;
How to read Case Law and specific Statute Pension Law;
Applying the lessons to reading  the 1992 UK Statutory Instrument No:129;
Reading the Statute Law stating how the Law is... not how imagination might make it.  Go Here.

•  Is there a difference between a Bee and a Bull’s foot?

• The Bundle for ECHR Strasbourg Court;

•  Fancourt LJ ‘Approved’ Judgement;

• Judgement Analysed ~ Appeals Time Line.

This Profound Question greatly afflicts these two Court Jesters who simply have no idea between them, judging by their insipid grasp of UK Jurisprudence what, if any, the difference is?

As Jesters are meant to be, they are in combination, a laughing stock and when the ECHR Justices pick themselves off the floor in Strasbourg after having a fit of hysterics of laughter, they will ask?

Is this what Brexit British is at its very judicial best ?

In the interim Vos received, as he was meant to, an unlawfully obtained email intercept from the Bugler to Minister X via BT Belfast. MI5 McCallum duly reported to Vos and no doubt in more sedition  to Duncan Smith/Francoise/Cash that the Bugler intended to block Vos et al  from TMB.

This caused much panic at 04:01hrs in the morning because Sir Geoffrey could not find the Opinions he would have to quote from in response to any Judicial Review which might be placed before him.

The expression ‘hoist on his own petard’ also springs to mind because this devious Knight gave approval to both his Registrar Coburn and his side kick Choudhury to destroy all the Applications and bundles the Appellant had placed before the Court of Appeal thus Vos had not a clue what had taken place and worse, what they collectively did was complicit criminal fraud.

These numbskulls seem to remain unaware of their Sovereign’s intense interest in the affairs of TMB and their unlawful activities and now unfortunately HM has more time on his hands than ever ?

But Dear Reader let us remind this International Readership exactly who Vos, Fancourt, Coburn, and his ‘echo’ Choudhury really are in this den of fraudsters… So let us drag them into the light of scrutiny.

Sir Geoffrey Vos PC [Privy Councillor], thus advisor to His Majesty King Charles III [does one hear more ECHR chortling?] is The Keeper, or Master of the Rolls and Records of the Chancery of England, commonly known as the Master of the Rolls [MoR].

Vos is the President of the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales and Head of Civil Justice, such as it is, under his shady ‘Leadership’.

The Appointment of the MoR, made by the UK Sovereign and Parliament, is done with the clear expectation that His Majesty will be presented with a suitably qualified Subject who is expected to be a personage of exemplary Honesty, Integrity, Decency, and of Common Courtesy, to the highest standing and standards within the English and Wales Judiciary.

Embarrassingly and to the crushing reputational detriment of all those who strive to serve decently and responsibly in the English and Wales Judiciary to such aspirational values, the Justices have now become aware that the current Master of Rolls and some of his leading Civil Servants are nothing more, nor less, than corrupt common fraudsters.

His published actions continue to beg questions. By the common knowledge of his shady published maladroit activities Vos’s overriding values esteem to the acquisition of personal wealth so he can play with horses the ‘sport of kings’. Now whether or not this is for favours granted remains to be exposed. Much of Vos’s Mother Lode it hidden away in offshore depositories e.g., the Cayman Islands, and  whether or not tax paid is yet another moot point to be pursued by HMIRevenue and the Serious Fraud Office?

Vos knows little of, and practices even less of the Common Law, and in this instance particularly Pension Law. His demonstrated lawless actions, which are observed and imitated by his immediate subordinates including Fancourt and his fraudsters Coburn and Choudhury set an appalling example to those aspirants of higher values and standards in the Judiciary.

One cannot mention Vos without including his ner’do well lickspittle Sir Timothy Fancourt LJ, commonly known to disabled Firefighters as the ‘parachutist’  who at a moments notice can be parachuted into a tricky situation to do his Master’s bidding. No doubt for favours all round in whatever form it may eventually come later, whilst assisting his Master.

At the opening of this Appeal Court Hearing done by Skype  on the 3rd July 2020 Fancourt LJ was clearly lost. Indeed he is on the transcript at a very early point as he struggled to acquaint himself with this technically challenging Pensions Case where he states to a startled Appellant disabled FSV-FMG … “Well, this Clause 5 [he meant Paragraph 5] takes some reading”… This from a supposedly well read, experienced,  Lord Justice presumably specialising in Pensions Law?

Fancourt’s name is synonymous with the term ‘Mr.Fixit’. For example, one is driven out of curiosity to ask what role, if any, did an ‘arm’s length’ Vos and his participating ‘parachutist’ Sir Timothy Fancourt LJ play in the recent media moguls’ case of ‘hacking’ in the  case of Prince Harry and for what inducement?

In this Pension matter of obstructed ‘due process’ Vos, Fancourt, and his Registry gangs’  malignant finger marks are all over this chicanery.

Indeed the outrageous sacking of Lady Falk LJ was simply barefaced brigandry of the highest order because they knew, or assumed wrongly, that they would get away with all this disloyal brutality just because the Lady Justice had a mind of her own.

But,  as with ‘DDJ’ Burrows in Preston Combined Court, long runs the fox, and Rule 43 is the only rightful place for Vos, Fancourt, and their gangsters, Coburn and Choudhury at the Court of Appeal Registry.

To explain Rule 43. HM Prisons usually have a block of isolated cells; one person per cell where the inmate is placed in protective custody from other inmates where they remain for 24 hours a day with the exception of 1 daily hour for fresh air exercise.

Naturally inmates of the caliber of sex offenders, the Police, and Judiciary are placed in these ‘refuges’.

They are entitled, and the Bugler should know, because of his former State appointed role as a Member of a HMP Board, to petition a Board Member including in the watchful ‘wee’ hours in prevention of suicides or attacks.

It is unlikely, based on this experience, that Vos, Fancourt, Coburn, or Choudhury will take kindly to such a confinement in such a hostile environment and if for one moment they think that the remainder of the inmates will not know they are present then once more they will be wrong.

But of course when the time comes, as it will, to ‘set the example’ they will have no choice in the matter. One should never forget the execution of Admiral John Byng…Pour Encourager Les Autres…

Sedition was formerly a Capital offence and still remains on the Statute Book with confinement for life. Such is the price of the abuse of Judicial power, Human Rights and treachery to the Kingdom…

After concluding an Editorial review on a final revision of the legal ‘bundle’ which will support  a formal Application, as opposed to a provisional application to the ECHR at the Strasbourg Court, it has been decided that it is essential to not only re-Index the original legal  ‘Opinions’[without amendment] commencing in June 2013 but in addition to extend and include the additional ‘Opinions’ generated since that time making a total of 7 Opinions.

It is felt, anticipating another dearth of Pension Law  Specialist Justices, which has been experienced in England and Wales that it would be helpful to European Justices, perhaps working in a new discipline, and certainly across language barriers  to provide these Justices involved with at least a decade of professional ‘Opinions’ expressed in detail on the applicable UK law involved in this issue.

The UK Jurisprudence not only deliberately ‘failed’ to bring this Human Rights pension dispute to ‘due process trial’ but under their  malignant ‘management’ with vigour and  in ill-disguised hostility and obmutescence provided only one official Judgement since 2011 and this by a self-evidently technically flawed High Court of Appeal Justice, Fancourt LJ who had no recognisable experience of any description in this particular pension law discipline.

The Bugler will therefore present to the Strasbourg Court one original ‘Pensions Primer ~ In Plain English’ originally produced for the use of the UK Judicature Justices, and the seven ‘Opinions’ excluding the single ‘Approved Judgement’ by Fancourt LJ who at least had the honesty  to state to an astonished Appellant disabled FSV~FMG …”Well, this Clause 5 [he actually meant Paragraph 5] takes some reading”… referring to 1992 Statutory Instrument No:129 ! 

Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWHC 2789 (Ch)                           Appeal Ref: CH-2020-000043

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES

CHANCERY APPEALS (ChD)

The Rolls Building

7 Rolls Buildings

Fetter Lane

London

EC4A 1NL

Date: 03/07/2020

Before:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FANCOURT

Between:

FRANCIS GALPIN

Intended Appellant (the “Appellant”)

and

LANCASHIRE COMBINED FIRE AUTHORITY

Intended Respondent (the “Respondent”)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

The Applicant appeared In Person

No appearance was made by or on behalf of the Respondent

Hearing date: 3 July 2020

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Approved Judgment

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

 MR JUSTICE FANCOURT: 

1. This is a renewed application by Mr Galpin for permission to appeal against a decision of the Pensions Ombudsman, which was given on 10 September 2019. The original application for permission to appeal on a question of law was considered by Falk J on the papers, and on 2 April 2020 she refused permission to appeal, essentially on the basis that the legal issue raised was unarguable.  Mr Galpin, as he is entitled to do, renewed his application for permission to appeal.

2. Mr Galpin is a retired firefighter and he has a pension under the Fireman’s Pension Scheme.

3. He was forced to retire, as a fireman, through ill-health as a result of an accident at the age of 54. He would otherwise have been entitled to continue to work until the age of 60.

4. Mr Galpin made a complaint to the Pensions Ombudsman on 10 October 2017 and the complaint, at that stage, was that he was wrongly being paid a Rule B1 ordinary pension, rather than a Rule B3 ill-health pension.

5. The complaint was considered first by a senior adjudicator at the Pensions Ombudsman’s office, who wrote an opinion on 13 March 2019 saying that the complaint should not be upheld. Mr Galpin, as he was entitled to do, did not agree with that opinion and accordingly his complaint was further considered by the Pensions Ombudsman, in fact the Deputy Pensions Ombudsman, who gave her decision for not upholding the complaint on 10 September 2019.

6. Mr Galpin sought to appeal to the High Court and after one or two false starts, via the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland and then the Court of Appeal in this Country, the appeal was finally properly issued in the High Court on 4 February 2020. It was therefore significantly out of time but Falk J considered that there were sufficient reasons to justify an extension of time, and she made that order for an extension of time on 2 April but then refused permission to appeal by the same order.

7. She gave detailed reasons why she considered that, on the true interpretation of the relevant parts of Schedule 2 to the Fireman’s Pension Scheme Order 1992, the Ombudsman had clearly been right and therefore Mr Galpin’s appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

8. After the application for permission to appeal was renewed, Falk J made a further order on 6 May 2020, adjourning the hearing that was due to take place to enable various matters to be done in the interim so as to give Mr Galpin the best possible chance of advancing his arguments on the basis of the relevant facts of the case. The relevant facts, in accordance with Falk J’s direction, were set out in a document that the employer Fire Authority prepared, dated 6 May 2020, and Mr Galpin then responded directly, and very helpfully, by adding in his points of disagreement, such as they are, in the same document, which I have before me.

9. The relevant facts are that, as I have already said, Mr Galpin was forced to retire early, aged 54, as a result of a road traffic accident when he was on duty. That was a compulsory retirement for the purposes of the pension scheme.  Given his rank at the time of Assistant Divisional Officer, he was entitled to retire at 60 and so he was effectively forced to retire more than five years early.

10. The total pay, to which he was entitled with flexible duty allowance at the date of his retirement, was £32,904.00.

11. The issue between Mr Galpin and the Pension Scheme is that, he says, the rules of the scheme require to be taken into account the chance of the firefighter obtaining further promotion before what would otherwise have been his normal retirement age, and Mr Galpin’s case, set out in his amendment to the facts document, is that there was a good chance, as he saw it, of promotion to the rank of Divisional Officer 2 by the age of 60. He says that, in effect, he was doing that work and had that responsibility in any event, and that therefore he considered he had a good chance of promotion.

12. With that promotion the pay, as at the date of his actual retirement, would have been £36,547.72. At one stage, it appeared that part of Mr Galpin’s argument was that, not only any promotion should be taken into account, but also any increase in the pay for the relevant rank by the normal retirement age should also be taken into account.  But Mr Galpin now accepts that the second point is not a good point.  Nevertheless he maintains his case that the prospect of promotion by the normal retirement age of 60 should have been taken into account.

13. The issue is, and is accepted to be, purely a question of the true interpretation of the Pension Scheme comprised in the relevant statutory instrument.

14. Falk J encapsulated the issue in her order of 6 May 2020 in the following terms, and I quote:

“Whether as a matter of statutory construction of paragraph 5 of part 3 of Schedule 2 contained in Schedule 2 to the Fireman’s Pension Scheme Order, SI 1992 No. 129, the requirement to calculate the notional retirement pension “by reference to” actual average pensionable pay means either:

 (a)   as the respondent contends, that the calculation must be done using actual pay in the year to the date of retirement, or,

(b)    as the appellant contends, that the calculation must be done by reference to the pay scales in place at the date of retirement, but assuming that the individual would have continued to progress through those pay scales and achieve available promotions until the date he or she could have been required to retire, absent ill-health or injury”.

15. The relevant provisions of the scheme are, first, in appendix one, where Part B differentiates between an ordinary pension, at paragraph B1, and an ill-health award, at paragraph B3. It is common ground that Mr Galpin is entitled to an ill-health award and not an ordinary pension.

16. In schedule two to that appendix, there are then detailed provisions for the calculation of an ill-health pension. By virtue of his long years of service, Mr Galpin falls within paragraph 4 of that schedule. However, it is the terms of paragraph 5 that are directly in issue and they provide as follows:

“(1)        Where:

(a)  if the person had continued to serve until he could be required to retire on account of age, he would have become entitled to an ordinary or short service pension, “the Notional Retirement Pension” and

(b)  the amount calculated in accordance with paragraph 3 or 4 exceeds the amount of the Notional Retirement Pension,

the amount of the ill-health pension is that of the Notional Retirement Pension.

(2)  The Notional Retirement Pension is to be calculated by reference to the person’s actual average pensionable pay”.

17. Paragraph 5(1) therefore requires a cap to be imposed on the amount of the ill-health pension that would otherwise be calculated under paragraphs 3 or 4 of Schedule 2 by reference to the amount of the Notional Retirement Pension that the retired firefighter would have achieved had he continued to work until the age of retirement.

18. However, paragraph 5(2) says that that Notional Retirement Pension is to be calculated by reference to the person’s actual average pensionable pay. Average pensionable pay, for the purposes of the scheme, is defined in rule G1 as the average pensionable pay of a regular firefighter and is, subject to paragraphs five to seven, the aggregate of his pensionable pay during the year ending with the relevant date, and the relevant date is the last day of the firefighter’s service as a regular firefighter.

19. It is therefore clear that a normal pension, under Section B1, and the Notional Retirement Pension are to be calculated using the average pensionable pay during the last year of actual service. However, Mr Galpin’s argument is that the significance of the words ‘by reference to’ in paragraph 5(2) of the order is that they require the prospects of promotion during the remaining years of what would otherwise have been normal service to be taken into account.  He argues that the words ‘by reference to’ signifies something different from what the word “is” would have signified, as for example it is used in an earlier part of the appendix: “the pension is the person’s actual average pensionable pay”.

20. He supports his argument by reference to guidance in the form of a commentary that was issued by the Home Office at the time when the pension scheme came into effect. The relevant part of that guidance says as follows:

“How much is the pension?  The sums are set out in examples one and four to seven, the basis of the calculations is explained here.  A firefighter’s basic ill-health pension is never less than 1/60^th of average pensionable pay, APP, and never more than 40/60^th, two-thirds of APP or what could have been earned by compulsory retirement age”.

21. Mr Galpin fastens on the last words in that quotation and say that requires the scheme to consider what the firefighter could have earned had he continued to work until compulsory retirement on grounds of age.

22. The commentary and guidance is provided to give practical guidance to those considering their pension entitlement on the way that the detailed provisions of the pension scheme operate. The detailed provisions are highly complex and, with respect, not easy for someone who is not very technically minded to understand.

23. The guidance has no statutory force, however; it is the scheme itself that has to be construed. The significance of the guidance was addressed by the Ombudsman in his decision.  He referred to the paragraph to which I have referred, and he said, as follows:

‘I find that the commentary does not support Mr N’s interpretation’ (I interpolate Mr N, in the decision, was Mr Galpin), and then he referred to a further argument in relation to the scheme.

24. He said Mr Galpin suggests that the figure of average pensionable pay should be determined by the Chief Fire Officer, based on what they think the likely salary could have been at the point of compulsory retirement. However, that interpretation implies a level of guesswork and forecasting that simply is not reflected in the methodology prescribed by the order or illustrated in the commentary.  Read in the context in which they are used in the commentary, the two instances of what could have been earned by compulsory retirement age are references to the number of years of service that could be achieved, not the average pensionable pay. In both cases, the calculation described is based on a maximum of 40 years’ service or the length of service that could have been earned by compulsory retirement age.

25. In my judgment, there is no scope at all for construing paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 2 to the order so as to incorporate a requirement to take account of what promotion may or may not have been achieved by a firefighter between the date of early retirement and the normal retirement age.

26. There is no machinery in the scheme enabling the scheme administrators to assess or predict, or guess, what that promotion might in any given case have been. There is nothing in the wording which suggests that that kind of exercise is required to be undertaken.

27. In my judgement, the words ‘by reference to’ are simply being used as a synonym for ‘using’ as if the paragraph had said “the Notional Retirement Pension is to be calculated using the person’s actual average pensionable pay”. There is no warrant for interpreting that as referring to any theoretical pensionable pay that might have been achieved by a later date.

28. I am sympathetic to Mr Galpin in the sense that the commentary and guidance uses a phrase which is ambiguous, namely “or what could have been earned by compulsory retirement age”. However, in context, and by reference to the examples given in the guidance, one of which, example seven, is inconsistent with Mr Galpin’s case, it is reasonably clear that that phrase is intended to connote the number of years of service that would have been achieved by compulsory retirement and has nothing to do with any promotion.

29. It follows, accordingly, that I consider that there is no realistic prospect of the argument on the issue of law succeeding in Mr Galpin’s favour. I consider that Falk J was right for the reasons that she gave.  I therefore refuse permission to appeal.

End of Judgment

Using 3d-Flip Book.

The main controls are at the base of the illustrated page;

‘X’ [2nd from right] gives full screen mode;

‘esc’ to return to normal Screen;

‘ ••• ‘ 3 dots gives full download capability usually set by the user to deliver to the ‘desktop’.

The fact of the Law is Fancourt LJ simply got it entirely wrong from beginning to end; order; counter order; disorder.