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)

Key Points

• The principle of modified universalism (being the principle underlying the common law power to assist foreign insolvency proceedings) continues to exist
• There is a common law power to order production of information to assist foreign insolvency proceedings
• Common law assistance does not enable office holders to do something they would not be able to do under the insolvency laws by which they are appointed

The Facts

Key Points

• Court cannot grant relief under the UK Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR) where it could not provide such relief in a domestic insolvency.
• Even if such option were possible, court would not do so where a contract is governed by English law.
• Possibility of effectively applying provisions of foreign law under the CBIR restricted.

The Facts

Key Points

Where a sole director and shareholder of a company had breached fiduciary duties he could not ratify the breach if the company was insolvent;

Claims against the company in liquidation by dishonest assisting parties could not be set off under rule 4.90 Insolvency Rules against any liability they had in damages for that assistance.

The Facts

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”).

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.

The Landlords of units occupied by Game have been given permission by the Court to appeal to the Court of appeal against the principles laid down in Goldacre (Offices) Ltd v Nortel Networks UK Ltd (In Administration) [2009] EWHC 3389 (Ch) [2010] Ch 455 that rent falling due before the commencement of an administration does not fall to be paid as an expense of the administration.