Representation:-

in layman's language:

on winding up of an insolvent pension scheme (which by definition must mean that there is insufficient money to pay scheme benefits in full) the entitlements of scheme members must be calculated by reference to the respective normal retiring ages applicable to their respective periods of service and the High Court had been wrong to hold that European sex discrimination/equal pay law (as interpreted by the ECJ in the case of Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assnce Group ECJ 1990 ICR 616) requires a degree of priority to be given to those (typically men aged between 60 and 65 at the date of the Barber judgment - 17th May 1990) who were still in employment at that date.

in technical language:

1. the ruling in this case applies to occupational pension schemes whose original rules provided for different normal retiring dates for male and female members (referred to for purposes of this note as "Barber relevant" pension schemes) which went into insolvent winding up between 6th April 1997, when Pensions Act 1995 s.73 came into force, and 6th April 2005 when the original section 73 was replaced by a new version introduced by Pensions Act 2004 s.270.

2. the benefits to which a member of a "Barber relevant" pension scheme who had not reached normal retirement age under the scheme rules by 17th May 1990 (the date of the ECJ judgment in Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assnce Group ECJ 1990 ICR 616) and who continued in employment during the "Barber window" (i.e. between 17th May 1990 and the date of equalisation by the scheme of male and female normal retirement ages) is entitled for purposes of Pensions Act 1995 s.73 does not include entitlement to benefits accrued outside the "Barber window".

For relevant general notes see Definitions and interpretation/pension age .