Representation of Friends Life Assurance 13-Dec-12

• Jurisdiction: Jersey
• Court: Royal Court
• Judge: The Bailiff
• Judgment Date: 13 December 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] JRC 232
• Date: 13 December 2012

[2012] JRC 232

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi)

Before:

Sir Michael Birt, Kt., Bailiff, andJurats ClaphamandOlsen.

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 27 OF AND SCHEDULE 2 TO THE INSURANCE BUSINIESS (JERSEY) LAW 1996

Friends Life Assurance Society Limited (“FLAS”)

First Representor

and

Friends Life Company Limited (“FLC”)

Second Representor

Friends Life Limited (“FLL”)

Third Representor

Advocate S. M. Huelin for the Representor.

Authorities

Insurance Business (Jersey) Law 1996.

Companies — application relating to proposed scheme for the transfer of business.

The Bailiff

1 This is an application by three companies in the Friends Life Group for the transfer of insurance business pursuant to Article 27 and Schedule 2 of the Insurance Business (Jersey) Law 1996. More particularly the intention is to transfer to Friends Life Limited the whole of the long-term insurance business carried on or from within Jersey by Friends Life Assurance Society Limited and part of the long-term insurance business carried on in or from within Jersey by Friends Life Company Limited. It is part of a group re-organisation and the Jersey part of the scheme forms part of a larger scheme which has come before the High Court in London for approval under the relevant English legislation.

2 The test in such cases is well established. First the Court must be satisfied that the relevant procedural requirements have been complied with. This relates particularly, of course, to notifying all policy holders who might be affected by the proposed changes; secondly, the Court must consider whether any policyholder or others would be adversely affected by the scheme.

3 Dealing with the first point we have received appropriate affidavit evidence and we are quite satisfied that the requirements of the Law, as modified by the Court at an earlier hearing, have been complied with.

4 As to the second and significant part of the test, we are satisfied that the transfer can properly be approved. We refer to a number of matters. First and most importantly, there is the report of the independent actuary, which is to the effect that the scheme will not have a material impact on the benefit expectations nor will it materially disadvantage the benefit security of any group of policyholders. Secondly, we note that the UK scheme has been approved by the High Court on 4 ^th December. Thirdly, we note that the matter has been referred to the Jersey...