Attorney General decides not to appeal Wedgwood decision

Finance | Vibeka Mair | 22 Mar 2012

The Attorney General will not appeal the recent decision concerning the Wedgwood Museum at the High Court.

Last December, the High Court ruled that the Wedgwood Museum’s assets are to be transferred to the Pension Protection Fund (PPF). The Museum found itself in this position after Waterford Wedgewood Potteries went insolvent, leaving the museum as sole sponsor of its pension scheme.

The Attorney General was considering whether to appeal the decision, and has decided not to. An Attorney General spokesman said: “The trial judge gave the issues before him careful consideration and the Attorney does not believe his interpretation of the relevant law could be challenged. He has also taken account of the representations made by Alan Wedgwood."

David Davison, director at Spence & Partners, says the Attorney General’s decision is not surprising: “The grounds for appeal were very limited,” he said. “The Wedgwood Museum signed up to the scheme, and had the opportunity to research the risks.”

Government in talks with PPF

However, the government appears keen to protect the Museum’s 250-year-old collection.

Pensions minister Steve Webb recently told the House of Commons that the minister for culture Ed Vaizey had spoken with the chairwoman of the PFF to explain the "importance of the collection for the nation".

Webb said: "Vaizey has asked her whether she can find a way of preventing the collection from being broken up. That is something we all want to see."

Webb, however, warned: "When any charity or other organisation joins a last-man-standing pension scheme, it is important it take proper advice about the liabilities it is taking on."

Webb has ruled out any changes to the laws governing the PPF and insolvencies, arguing they could have "significant repercussions".

Directory: Spence & Partners
Who's Who: David Davison

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.