The Court of Appeal in England has confirmed that a Trustee in Bankruptcy (“TIB”) cannot force a bankrupt person to elect to take their uncrystallised pension benefits solely so that the TIB can recover the benefit as income for the member's creditors. The decision in Horton v Henry (2016) clarifies the legal position after previous conflicting judgements had been given by the Courts.

OTG v Barke is the latest case from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) to consider how the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) apply in the context of the sale of a business in administration. The case largely resolves the uncertainty in that context and affirms the general practice of administrators and purchasers of businesses from them.

In the current economic climate, landlords are having to deal more frequently with tenants who are in administration. Where the administrators of the tenant are using the property for the purposes of the administration, the moratorium on forfeiture and irritancy proceedings that applies in administrations means that the landlords are unlikely to be able to recover the property in order to relet it.

Last year, in the case of Oakland v Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd, the EAT suggested that, if an administrator has been appointed with a view to liquidating a transferor company, this fell within the exception provided by TUPE Regulation 8(7) (which provides that where there are insolvency proceedings instituted with a view to liquidation, the key employee protections afforded under TUPE do not apply). This ran contrary to government guidance.

The Court of Appeal has heard the appeal in Oakland v Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd. Although its written judgment has not yet been published, it appears that it heard an appeal only on a narrow point of employment law and did not give definitive guidance on the application of the insolvency provisions in the TUPE Regulations which had been the principal issue in the EAT.

When can shareholders also have employee status?

Many commercial landlords will currently be dealing with issues arising out of their tenants' financial difficulties, in particular the impact of insolvency proceedings. For tenants who are in administration, a moritorium applies, which will prevent a landlord taking action against the tenant without leave from the Court. Generally, the Courts will have a degree of sympathy for landlords, and will afford significant weight to the landlords’ proprietary rights when deciding whether to allow landlords to commence proceedings against a tenant.

The insolvency legislation has laid the foundations for a rescue approach towards companies, which are facing insolvency. One such regime is administration. The administrator is sometimes referred to as the "company doctor". The administrator is given extensive powers to administer the affairs of the company in order to save the company from being wound up or at least, to maximise the financial position for the company's creditors.

We look at the recent case of Barlow Clowes International Ltd & Ors v Henwood [2008] EWCA Civ 577 which considers when a domicile of origin can be revived.

Background

In its judgment in Haine v Sec of State for BERR and the liquidator of Compounds Section Ltd the Court of Appeal has decided an important question on employer insolvency.