In the recent decision of Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch) the High Court held that a Bankrupt’s unexercised rights to draw his pension did not represent income to which the Bankrupt was entitled within the meaning of section 310(7) of the Insolvency Act 1986 and so refused to make an Income Payments Order. This contradicted the controversial decision in Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch) and has created uncertainty as to which is the correct position. The Horton case is being appealed.

The High Court has held that a bankrupt’s unexercised rights to draw his pension did not represent income to which the bankrupt was entitled and so refused to make an income payments order, contradicting the controversial decision in Raithatha v Williamson which held that a bankrupt’s right to draw income from a personal pension may be subject to an income payments order even if the individual has yet to draw his pension.

Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch)

Since the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (“1999 Act”), it has been understood that the rights of a bankrupt under a tax approved pension plan are excluded from the bankruptcy estate and do not vest in his Trustee in Bankruptcy.

That said, where a Bankrupt was already drawing an income from his pension, his Trustee could seek an Income Payments Order over that income.

The Court of Appeal has handed down an important judgment for landlords and insolvency practitioners, in the case of Jervis v Pillar Denton; re Games Station (“Game”).

In our e-updates of 20 January 2010 and 16 August 2010, we looked at decisions of the English and Scottish courts from December 2009 and August 2010 in which it was decided that, in England and Scotland respectively, the Administrators of a tenant company are bound to account to the landlord of premises for rent due in relation to the period during which those premises are being u

Our government has a longstanding commitment to cutting red tape. One of the ways of doing this it seems is to propose an Act of Parliament running to 153 pages. Thus we are presented with the Deregulation Bill.

A few of the provisions of this Bill relate to insolvency. The most significant are:

Appeal Judges in the Court of Session yesterday issued a decision directing that the liquidators of Scottish Coal Company (SCC) cannot abandon sites or disclaim statutory licences imposing obligations on the company.

According to The Times (25 October 2013) the British Property Federation has advised landlords to take larger rent deposits to reduce losses caused by the insolvency of a tenant.

A new Statement of Insolvency Practice relating to pre-packaged sales in Administration has been issued and has effect from 1 November 2013.

This provides for earlier notification to creditors of the sale and the justification for it and provides a more extensive list of information that must be included.

The main changes are:

The Court of Appeal’s decision in the matters of Nortel GMBH and Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (both in administration) and other companies has been overturned by the Supreme Court. Liabilities imposed on insolvent companies by the Pensions Regulator (“tPR”) will not be treated as an expense of the insolvency, which would be payable by the office holder in advance of making payment of his own remuneration or to floating charge holders. The liability will rank as an unsecured debt rateably with all other unsecured creditors.