In Paul's article on that in Railways Pension Trustees Co Ltd v Atos, he notes that it is another case of trustees taking a partisan role, arguing the case for members, instead of remaining neutral and one or more representative beneficiaries being appointed. This is an unfortunate development. CMG is another example. In contrast to Lloyd's 1 and Axminster, where a rep ben was appointed, the Trustees took on the rule of arguing against forfeiture. Was this because they had been party to and carried out the remediation exercise, the validity of the which the employer was challenging ? Even if so, it would surely have been better for a rep ben to be appointed, particularly given that the responsibility lay with the trustees both (a) to make correct payments of benefit in the first play and (b) to carry out the remediation exercise correctly. Members might, for example, have wished to ventilate arguments based on estoppel by conduct that the trustee would not have been in a position to advance, and to consider the legal implications of past maladministration. That apart, it is rarely easy for the trustee and its legal advisers to be confident that all possible arguments that members might have been advised to put forward will have been presented to the court.