header-logo header-logo

02 December 2016 / Graham McPhie
Issue: 7728 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Conflict of interest

nlj_7728_mcphie

Graham McPhie reports on resolving the tension between bankruptcy & pension rights

  • Horton v Henry [2016] EWCA Civ 989, [2016] All ER (D) 50 (Oct) has settled a conflict between two High Court decisions regarding whether a trustee in bankruptcy was entitled to force a bankrupt to take a pension not yet in payment.

In Raithatha v Williamson (a bankrupt) [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch), [2012] 3 All ER 1028 the High Court determined that a bankrupt’s entitlement to compel payment of pension benefits fell to be included in the assessment of his income within the meaning of s 310(7) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).

The High Court in Henry v Horton [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch), [2014] All ER (D) 193 (Dec) declined to follow Raithatha on the grounds that it was wrong on the effect of s 310(7).

The Court of Appeal formulated the question as follows: “Does a pension entitlement in respect of which a bankrupt has a present right to elect to draw down payment (but which

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