Land Ahoy!

For nearly 30 years we have been scratching our heads over the vexed question of whether guaranteed minimum pensions (GMPs) need to be equalised - and the even more vexed question of how this might be done. At last an end is in sight. Last year, it was reported that the issue was going to be referred to the High Court by Lloyds Bank and its pension schemes following claims from members co-ordinated by the staff union. This week the papers formally starting the legal process, and the questions for consideration, were lodged at the High Court.

The questions the court is being asked to decide are:

Where GMP has been earned after 17 May 1990 (the date of the landmark Barber equalisation case) is there an obligation on the scheme to adjust non-GMP benefits in order that the total benefits received by male and female members with equivalent age, service and earnings histories are equal? If so, is the equalisation obligation only triggered for a member where he or she can identify a comparator of the opposite sex? Is there a single correct method to achieve equalisation - and, if so, what is this method? If there is a choice of method, how do the trustees decide which method to use (whether exercising...