Background

In the case of Horton v Henry, the Court of Appeal has recently upheld the High Court’s decision that a Trustee in Bankruptcy cannot compel a bankrupt to draw down his pension rights where the bankrupt has not elected to do so.

The facts

Summary

Court of Appeal has confirmed that a bankrupt cannot be compelled to draw down pension rights for the benefit of creditors.

Facts

Following the supportive High Court decision in the case of Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 900 (Ch), the trustee in bankruptcy in this case applied for an order compelling a discharged bankrupt to draw down his pension rights for the benefit of his creditors.

Farm businesses often borrow from a variety of sources simultaneously, providing security through mortgages or charges over land and agricultural charges over other farm assets. What farmers may not realise, however, is how priority between lenders works to distribute funds realised, if the business gets into financial difficulties and the assets are sold.

McLean decision

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.

Summary

This is the latest case in the long running saga of attempts to make Mr Maud bankrupt.

Facts

The saga centres around a high value property complex in Spain. Mr Maud and objecting creditors contended on his appeal against a bankruptcy order made by the Registrar against him that the reason why the petitioners sought a bankruptcy order was for the ulterior motive of taking control of the property structure and that the order should be overturned.

The effects of bankruptcy are invariably demoralising and can have wider, sometimes unexpected, results for other members of the family. In no other area can this be as distressing as the potential loss of the family home.

Between family partners, whether or not married, it is usual for the family home to be owned jointly. If one of those partners is declared bankrupt, then, even if the other is blameless in connection with their finances, the effects on that blameless partner and any children can be devastating.

Key Points

• A dividend is a ‘transaction’ and therefore can be challenged under s 423 IA 86
• A duty to act in the best interests of creditors does not arise simply because there is a risk of insolvency which is not ‘remote’

The Facts

Savers who become bankrupt but have not yet drawn their pensions will not have to hand them to creditors after a ruling of the Court of Appeal put an end to fears that pension pots were at risk.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s ruling on Horton v Henry, originally heard in 2014, settling legal difficulties arising from a conflicting judgment of Raithatha v Williamson (2012); and the introduction of the pension freedoms.

The case ofBailey v Angove’s Pty Ltd heard in the UK Supreme Court has confirmed the general rule that an irrevocable agency will only be created in exceptional circumstances: there must be a specific agreement that the agent’s authority is irrevocable and the authority must be given with the intention of securing an interest of the agent.

The facts

Through corporate acquisitions and asset transfers, BAT Industries plc (“BAT”) (a Claimant in the proceedings) became liable to contribute to the clean-up of the sediment of the Lower Fox River in Wisconsin, U.S.A. Arjo Wiggins Appleton Limited (“AWA”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Sequana SA (“Sequana”) (a Defendant in proceedings), became liable to indemnify BAT for part of any monies paid out. Provision was duly made in AWA’s accounts to reflect a best estimate of the value of such liability.