The High Court has ruled that the BBC cannot modify its £19.8bn pension to cut future benefits for members of the broadcaster’s scheme, although it can still make other valid changes without employee consent.

As part of the ruling, the judge rejected the BBC’s claim that a rule in the pension trust deed which forbids alterations that adversely affect its members’ “interests” only applies to benefits they have already accrued.

The case looked at the treatment of future service benefits under the BBC’s pension scheme and found in favour of submissions from the plan that “interests” must include anything that would leave members worse off.

If the BBC decides to appeal, the court will hear the application on 15 September.

The judgement was welcomed by the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), and a spokesperson from the union said: “The court’s determination and clarification backs up the NUJ’s position that the pension scheme rules protect members from potential detrimental changes to benefits, and restrict the ability of the BBC to make changes that could lead to current and future members of the scheme being worse off in retirement.

“The NUJ hopes the BBC does not further waste licence fee money on an appeal to this decision. In the meantime, the union will reflect on the judgment with the NUJ’s legal team, and alongside the Representative Beneficiary’s legal advisors, as the BBC determines its next steps.”

Legal director at Arc Pensions Law, Kris Weber, also noted that the wording in the scheme limits the employer’s ability to stop paying a 42% contribution rate, compared to the 7% or 8% the BBC pays for more recent hires. Weber suggested the rules cannot be amended if it would substantially prejudice the interests of members, and that the High Court would view ending future accrual as breaching that protection.

“The scheme dates back to 1949 and it has a very restrictive amendment power, which wasn't uncommon in schemes of that era,” Weber commented. “Other schemes with similar wording will have to give careful thought to the implications. Some might have already made amendments in the past that are now called into question.”

He added: “The BBC will now have to decide whether to appeal. In the last round of litigation about how the BBC can limit its future pension costs, a visit to the Court of Appeal about capping pensionable salaries did pay off because the High Court’s judgment in favour of a Mr Bradbury was overruled.

“So, it's a good result for a lucky few members, but not-so-good news perhaps for other employees, freelancers, programme makers and others wanting a share of the BBC’s limited resources, let alone licence payers.”

Share Story: