The Chancery Division dismissed the respondent's application for permission to appeal the trial courts substantive decision that proposed to make an order that had required the respondent to give written notice to the pension scheme trustees requesting, so far as necessary, for all of his remaining pension fund to be designated as a drawdown pension fund, exercising such rights as he would have to draw down the entire fund, and directing that payment be made to a nominated UK bank account, denominated in sterling, in the name of the respondent, and previously notified in writing to the applicant. The respondent alleged that the misfeasance, and the purchase of the property, were wholly unrelated, either factually or in point of time. Further, that if one looked at the position of someone who had funded the pension themselves, as a result of having taken higher dividends, or salaries from the company, then, in those circumstances, that would not have been a relevant consideration; and, by parity of reasoning, the source of funds for the purchase of the property should not have been taken into account. It fell to be determined whether: (i) the court was prevented from making the order that was sought by the application under s 91 of the Pensions Act 1995; and (ii) the court should have exercised its discretion in the respondent's favour by refusing to have the order made under the Blight v Brewster [2012] All ER (D) 190 (Feb) jurisdiction in favour of the applicant. The court held: (i) it was not satisfied that there was a compelling reason why the present matter should be considered by the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in view of that apparent unanimity of view on the part of judges of first instance; and (ii) there was no real prospect of persuading the Court of Appeal that it was an irrelevant consideration; and the weight to be given to that factor was a matter for the trial judge in the exercise of his discretion. Accordingly, the application would be dismissed.