In a recent decision, the High Court held that legal advice taken in relation to certain transactions was not protected by privilege, as there was prima facie evidence that the purpose of the advice was to structure the transactions in a way that avoided the client’s liability to pay local authority care charges and/or as a transaction defrauding creditors: London Borough of Brent v Kane [2014] EWHC 4564 (Ch).

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

Nigel Barnett talks about bribes and other proprietary rights in insolvencies.

Introduction

For over 150 years, it has been a principle of English law that if an agent takes a bribe or a secret commission, he is liable to account to his principal for the amount received. However, there has been conflicting authority and academic debate as to whether the principal merely has a personal claim against the agent or whether he can assert a proprietary claim to the monies received and any profits made therefrom.

The Court of Appeal held that, while section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 did not apply to require the stay of a winding-up petition, it would be appropriate to dismiss or stay a petition pending resolution of a dispute over the petition debt where such dispute was within the scope of an arbitration agreement.

In our recent article of 4 November 2014 we referred to a new case where the controversial decision in Raithatha v Williamson would be reconsidered. 

On 17 December 2014 the High Court handed down judgment in the case of Horton v Henry. The decision has been highly anticipated. 

The recent English High Court decision in Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch)has conflicted with the earlier decision in Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWCA Civ. 799 and leaves the law unclear as to whether a debtor’s pension forms part of their bankruptcy estate.

A trustee in bankruptcy’s entitlement to seek an income payments order (“IPO”) in respect of a bankrupt’s income is governed by section 310 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA”). Under section 310(7) of the IA the income of a bankrupt:

Is a pension pot beyond the reach of a trustee in bankruptcy? Conflicting High Court decisions reviewed below raise an interesting conflict between practical policy and strict technical interpretation

In both cases, the question was whether a trustee in bankruptcy can obtain an Income Payments Order (IPO) in respect of pension entitlements under a personal pension plan, where no election to draw the pension had been made prior to the Bankruptcy Order.

Preamble

The background

In common with most of the population, now is the key time for making those resolutions for 2015. Suggestions appear below!

Background and headlines As market participants will know, the English courts have been increasingly willing to accept jurisdiction to sanction schemes in respect of foreign companies (in a series of cases culminating in Apcoa’s change of governing law – see further below). Reaching a consensual restructuring grows ever more challenging in a world where more complex capital structures and creditor composition create divergent interests.