header-logo header-logo

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

Civil way: 4 November 2016

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll