Provider Beware! Bankruptcy Payment Order May Be Required to Pay a Bankrupt's Pension to Official Assignee
Welcome to day 3 of our '12 Days of Christmas' series. Today we look back on the effect of bankruptcy on a personal pension policy.
Overall 2018 has produced a number of positive judgments from the perspective of lenders and insolvency practitioners.
In particular, the courts delivered many useful judgments disposing of numerous challenges to the enforceability of loans and security and, also, restricting abuse of the courts’ processes.
Contemptuous McKenzie Friends
On 6 February 2018, the Irish Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in ACC Loan Management Limited v Rickard1 ("Rickard") in relation to the appointment of a receiver in aid of execution on the basis that the issue was one of general and public importance.
Background
What happens if you assign your right to litigate to a person or company that is unconnected to the event that creates the right to litigate? In the recent Supreme Court case of SPV Osus Ltd –v- HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Ireland) Limited & Ors [2018] IESC 44, the Supreme Court held that this sort of transaction is void under Irish law and contrary to public policy.
Madoff ponzi scheme litigation
In ACC Loan Management Limited -v- Rickard [2017] IECA 245, the Court of Appeal ruled on two important aspects of the High Court's jurisdiction to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution over the property of a judgment debtor. In a decision which will assist lending institutions and other creditors in assessing their enforcement options to satisfy outstanding judgments, the Court has eliminated some of the confusion which had existed in Irish law in respect of the circumstances in which a receiver may be appointed by way of equitable execution and has confirmed that:
Examinership A number of significant decisions were made by the High Court and Court of Appeal relating to different aspects of the examinership process in 2017. |
The High Court delivered a stark reminder to personal insolvency practitioners (PIPs) that they serve an integral role in upholding the legitimacy of the bankruptcy process in a judgment delivered on 5 February 2018.
Background
The judgment arose out of an application by the Official Assignee (“OA”) to postpose the automatic discharge of a bankrupt. The OA submitted that the bankrupt had hidden assets from or failed to disclose assets which could have been realised for the benefit of the creditors of her estate.
Costello J in the High Court recently gave judgment in the case of In re James Coady (a Former Bankrupt) [2017] IEHC 653. In this case the Official Assignee ("OA") had sought directions in respect of what rights could vest in the OA from the bankrupt's pre-retirement personal pension policy (the "PP"). The bankrupt had reached normal retirement age under the PP after he was adjudicated bankrupt but before he was discharged from bankruptcy.
Following on from her decision of late last year in Re Darren Reilly & the Personal Insolvency Acts 2012 to 2015 [2017] IEHC 558 (further details of which can be found here), Ms.
Litigation & Dispute Resolution