The Government has announced that from October 2015 it plans to increase the minimum threshold for creditors’ bankruptcy petitions from £750 to £5,000 and the maximum level of debt in respect of which a Debt Relief Order (“DRO”) can be obtained from £15,000 to £20,000.

Declining to follow a 2012 decision, the High Court has ruled that a bankrupt’s unexercised rights to draw his pension did not represent income to which he was entitled within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1986, and so did not form part of the bankruptcy estate.

Background

Earlier this month, the government published debtor-friendly reforms to the personal insolvency regime, which it is proposed will come into effect from 1 October 2015.

The changes mean that a creditor cannot petition for a debtor’s bankruptcy unless they are owed at least £5,000. This is a considerable increase from the current threshold of £750 which has been in place since 1986.

In March the Government announced new pension reforms. From April 2015 pensioners reaching 55 years will be entitled to draw down their entire pension pot, to do with as they wish. Pensions minister Steve Webb was famously quoted as saying that pensioners should be able to “buy a Lamborghini” with their pension pot if they so wish. And if pensioners subsequently ran out of money, well, they would have the state pension to fall back on, after all. 

This update considers the recent High Court decision in Thomasand Another v Edmondson (12/05.2014) concerning the court’s ability to make an income payment order against a bankrupt who is already subject to an income payment agreement.

The background

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.

10 February 2014
[2014] EWHC 229 (Ch)
Chancery Division (Etherton C)

A deputy registrar was wrong to dismiss a discharged bankrupt’s annulment application when the only creditor had decided not to prove for its debt.  The deputy register also erred in his approach to the TIB’s application to change the basis of his remuneration.

Introduction

The Chancellor’s 2014 Budget speech revealed significant  changes to the way in which pension scheme members will be  able to access their savings. This move falls as just one of a raft  of changes to workplace pensions which Steve Webb MP has  described as a “pensions revolution”.

The Bankruptcy and Debt Advice (Scotland) Bill was passed by the Scottish Parliament on 20 March 2014, containing significant amendments to Scottish personal bankruptcy legislation.

Modernising Personal Bankruptcy

Summary

Following the US case of Morning Mist Holdings when a Court of Appeals decided that COMI had to be analysed on the date of the Chapter 15 case petition, we look again at the case of Kemsley where the US bankruptcy court held that COMI had to be analysed on the date of the filing of the UK bankruptcy. We consider whether this could have affected the outcome of the Kemsley case and look at the factors used by the English and US Courts to interpret an individual debtor’s COMI.

Background