When this topic was last considered two years ago, there was a real danger of pension rights (previously thought of as sacrosanct) being within the reach of trustees in bankruptcy by way of an income payments order (IPO). There were also two conflicting first instance decisions in play. The issue? Whether a pension entitlement capable of drawdown by election, but not yet in payment, can fall within the definition of income in section 310(7) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA86), and so be the potential subject of an IPO.

In May 2015, I wrote an article about the conflicting lower court decisions in Raithatha –v- Williamson and Horton –v- Henry, concerning undrawn pension entitlements and income payment orders. The Court of Appeal has now finally handed down its long expected Judgment.

Welcome to the latest edition of DLA Piper’s monthly newsletter – Pensions Round-Up – in which we provide an overview of developments in pension legislation, case law and regulatory guidance. In this edition we look at key developments from October 2016 including the following. ■ The Pensions Regulator: the publication of reports which look at cases concerning the power to declare scheme amendments void, failures to complete the scheme return, and the potential use of the Regulator’s anti-avoidance powers.

31/10/2016 Pensions Update ­ October 2016 http://bakerxchange.com/rv/ff002b980788f142ab3974e23146b6f2e393d02b 1/4 Pensions Update October 2016 In this issue Court of Appeal clarifies treatment of pensions on bankruptcy PPF publishes consultation on 2017/2018 levy DWP consults on valuing pensions for the advice requirement Regulator declares rule change void Next steps in leaving the European Union Committee publishes new evidence on regulation of pension schemes Regulator launches blog Government cancels plans t

The Court of Appeal resolves some of the conflict between insolvency and pensions law in its decision on Horton v Henry.

The Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court decision of the Deputy Judge in Horton v Henry (2014) confirming that a trustee in bankruptcy cannot access uncrystallised funds in a bankrupt's pension arrangements (or force the bankrupt to access them himself).

This article was first published in Practical Law.

With the long-awaited decision of the Court of Appeal in Horton v Henry, the Looking Glass decision in Raithatha v Williamson is finally laid to rest.

Horton v Henry: Pensions clarified

We previously discussed the uncertainty surrounding the treatment of pensions in a bankruptcy which arose from two conflicting high court decisions: Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch) and Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch).

In Hinton v Wotherspoon [2016] EWHC 623 (CH) (where this firm successfully represented the trustee in bankruptcy, Lloyd Hinton of Insolve Plus Limited), the court commented that the approach in Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch) was “plainly correct”.

A recent Court of Appeal decision in the UK has ruled that individuals facing bankruptcy cannot be forced to hand over their pensions to pay off outstanding debts. We examine the affect insolvency can have on your pension in this jurisdiction.

The recent UK Court of Appeal decision in Horton v Henry ruled that there was no requirement to draw down funds held in a pension in the event of bankruptcy. As a result of this decision, the UK legal system now appears to acknowledge that pension funds should be out of the reach of a bankruptcy trustee.

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Horton v Henry has highlighted the protection afforded to a bankrupt holding a private pension to the detriment of his bankruptcy creditors.

Facts

Summary