Well, well, well. If you have read the recently published annual report of the BBC pension fund trustees, you will have noticed a link to the recently published judgement of the High Court hearing in May, of the BBC's application to play jiggery-pokery with the pension scheme rules.

https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/mypension/en/summary_report_2023.pdf

In essence the BBC wanted permission to alter the scheme (in other words, close it) without the current necessity to have such a change signed off by the scheme's actuary. The result? The judge smacked the BBC's arguments to the boundary for six and told it to sling its hook. This is excellent news and shows that the courts do not always find for employers against the interests of their employees. I attended the first two of the three-day hearing and was alarmed at the robustness of the arguments put forward by the BBC's barrister: that active members have no legal interest in the build up of future pension in the scheme. The way he put it, he seemed to have strong points. But I was wrong. The judge politely but firmly dismissed the various arguments put forward by the BBC.  The corporation may appeal but will have to cite firm legal grounds for doing so. It can't just rock up to the Appeal Court and say it wants another go, this time in front of a more favourable judge. It asked the High Court for its opinion and got it. Just not the one it wanted. By the way, the report shows that scheme is now fully funded with a small surplus, which is excellent news.