header-logo header-logo

Civil way: 4 November 2016

04 November 2016
Issue: 7721 / Categories: Features , Civil way , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Pension relief for bankrupts; Suspended order shock; Family non-disclosure; Insolvency Rules found

LAUGHING BANKRUPT

An income payments order or undertaking with a life of up to three years under s 310 of the Insolvency Act 1986 is one of those irritations which the bankrupt will tolerate. It’s a device to provide a few crumbs to the creditors but it must never reduce the bankrupt’s income below that necessary to meet the reasonable domestic needs of themselves and their family. The official receiver or trustee will not be stirred into even thinking about seeking payments unless the bankrupt has at least a spare £20 per month.

The post-29 May 2002 bankrupt will generally preserve their pension. However, Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch) decided that a bankrupt could effectively be compelled to draw down for the purpose of servicing an income payments order. That decision has just been rubbished by the Court of Appel in Horton v Henry [2016] EWCA Civ 989. It would drive a coach and horses through the legislative protection afforded

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll