Robins v Secretary of State for Employment


2007. this is about insolvency and labour law

robins was employed by a company that went insolvent. he was told that there was not enogh money to pay thhe pension. he had a final salary scheme

they said they would reduce ebenefots for those who had not yet started to receive ebenfits

The ECJ said that a member state need not require that a pensionm scheme be fully guaranteed

a member state could require insurers to buy insurance

robins gained ebenfits of 20% of his entitlemnt under the Pensions Act 2004/. This was an imporpoer implementation of a directive.


If a state very badly implement a directive it does not count as in brasserie du ppecheur

a higher level of protection was reuired. states are allowed some discrwtion but the UK had gone way beyond that in being negligent




About Calers

Born Belfast 1971. I read history at Edinburgh. I did a Master's at UCL. I have semi-libertarian right wing opinions. I am married with a daughter and a son. I am allergic to cats. I am the falling hope of the not so stern and somewhat bending Tories. I am a legal beagle rather than and eagle. Big up the Commonwealth of Nations.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s