The trustees of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme -v- Olympic Airlines SA

On 29 April 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in relation to the trustees’ appeal. The unanimous decision was in favour of Olympic Airlines SA (the respondent). The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the High Court was wrong and confirmed that in order for there to be an ‘establishment’ there must be some business dealings with third parties. The trustees’ appeal was therefore dismissed.

Key Point

An "establishment" requires business and business activity to be carried out involving dealings with third parties and not simply acts of internal administration.

Facts

Case: (The Trustees of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme (Appellants) v Olympic Airlines SA (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 27)

Income payments orders (IPOs) are an essential tool for the trustee in bankruptcy in realising a bankrupt’s assets. Until recently, it had been assumed that, absent circumstances akin to fraud, a trustee in bankruptcy could not touch a bankrupt’s undrawn pension. However, in Raithatha v Williamson, the court decided that an income payments order may be made where the bankrupt has an entitlement to elect to draw a pension but has not exercised it at the time of the application. 

Drawn versus undrawn

Just before Christmas last year, the High Court handed down a judgment in a bankruptcy case which was contrary to a High Court decision in a previous pensions and bankruptcy case on essentially the same issues. It has left this area in some uncertainty for the time being and is the latest in a long history of developments in this area.

A little bit of history

The Singer & Friedlander Limited Pension and Life Assurance Scheme (the "Scheme") first came to general notice in relation to a case arguing whether the section 75 debt can be subject to a set off due to events after the time from which the relevant figures used in the calculation arose (read our article on Disputed section 75 debt claim).

Carrington Wire Defined Benefit Pension Scheme was set up for the benefit of the employees of Carrington Wire Limited; a Yorkshire based company engaged in the sale and supply of steel and wire products. Carrington, which started to wind down its business at the end of 2009, was at that time owned by Severstal, a Russian based international steel company. The scheme’s liabilities were guaranteed by Severstal’s parent company.

Of general interest is the appeal in the case of Horton v Henry, on which we reported in our January 2015 update. In Horton, the High Court declined to follow a previous ruling, and decided that a bankrupt could not be compelled to access his pension savings to pay off creditors.

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)

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.