Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
How safe is the pension of a bankrupt from a trustee in bankruptcy (trustee)? Steve Dillon, a partner and head of insolvency at Gosschalks, says that, although a recent decision concerning an income payments order (IPO) suggests that there is no need to panic now, the prudent pension advisor will err on the side of caution until the Court of Appeal has an opportunity to settle the issue.
Horton v Henry  EWHC 4209 (Ch),  All ER (D) 193 (Dec)
Mr Henry was made bankrupt. His assets on the date of the bankruptcy included four pension policies. Mr Henry did not wish to crystallise the policies and, without crystallisation, the precise value of the policies could not be determined. The applicant trustee, Mr Horton, applied to the court for an IPO, effectively seeking that Mr Henry be ordered to crystallise his policies and to exercise his elections in a manner desired by Mr Horton. The Chancery Division held that there was no power to require Mr Henry to elect in any particular way. The application would be dismissed.
The case concerned whether a trustee was entitled to an IPO under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), s 310, in particular in connection with the pension of a bankrupt.
The key issue was whether sums which Mr Henry could elect (but had not elected) to receive under pension policies during the currency of or before his bankruptcy amounted to monies to which Mr Henry was entitled (within the meaning of IA 1986, s 310(7)) and therefore could be the subject matter of an IPO. Put another way—could the court, on the application of a trustee, force a bankrupt to make the election(s) required to crystallise a pension policy to enable the sums realised thereby to be appropriated for the bankruptcy estate?
In considering the issue, Mr Robert Englehart QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of Chancery Division) was very mindful of the markedly similar set of circumstances and issues faced by Mr Bernard Livesey QC in Raithatha v Williamson  EWHC 909 (Ch),  3 All ER 1028. In his decision in Raithatha (which has been criticised), Mr Livesey QC decided that the bankrupt was 'entitled' to payment under an uncrystallised pension policy because he could simply ask for it to be crystallised.
The court in Horton disagreed with that in Raithatha, deciding that sums that would be due in future under an uncrystallised pension policy were not sums to which Mr Henry was entitled (within the meaning of IA 1986, s 310(7)); that there was no power available to the court to force Mr Henry to make the various elections he would have to make to crystallise entitlement to sums under the pension policies; and that, therefore, Mr Horton was not entitled to those sums by way of an IPO.
The court in Horton was troubled by the concept that an election to crystallise a pension policy benefit equated to simple request for payment. It felt instead that crystallisation involved a number of different elections, including choosing from a range of potential benefits, and that this created a barrier to sums potentially payable under a policy being considered sums to which a bankrupt was entitled. The court also felt that, until crystallisation, the amounts involved were not capable of ascertainment, and that such amounts could not properly be considered sums to which Mr Henry was entitled.
If there was a power within IA 1986 for the court to compel Mr Henry to make these various elections, then the question of entitlement could have been resolved that way—but there was not. This was notwithstanding counsel for Mr Horton ('ingeniously') suggesting that a bankrupt's duty (under IA 1986, s 333(1)(c)) to do all things as a trustee reasonably requires for the purpose of carrying out his function would provide that power. The court rejected that argument as circular, essentially because the uncrystallised sums were beyond the reach of IA 1986 and steps taken to obtain them could not be steps reasonably required for the trustee exercising his function.
In the short term it will clearly reduce or negate applications for IPOs following the reasoning in Raithatha. In the medium to long term I would expect trustees to have half an eye on automatic crystallisation dates for pension policies when considering applications to suspend discharge from bankruptcy.
From April 2015, members of pension schemes that have reached the age of 55 can elect to withdraw the entirety of their pension. In the wake of the decision in Raithatha, no doubt many pensions advisors have been frantically warning clients of the risk that their entire pension could be taken by a trustee and considering what contingency planning is available.
The decision in Horton suggests that there is no need to panic now but, given that both Raithatha and Horton are decisions at first instance, the prudent pension advisor will err on the side of caution until the Court of Appeal has an opportunity to settle the issue.
Most commentators (including myself) would agree that the decision in Horton would seem to reflect more accurately than Raithatha the intention of Parliament in removing most pensions from the 'pot' available for trustee in bankruptcy realisations (ie via the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999).
However, the position of pension policy holders, the trustees of their policies and their various advisors will remain in limbo until the Court of Appeal determines which reasoning is correct.
UPDATE: Horton v Henry was appealed, and the Court of Appeal handed down it's judgment on 7 October 2016. For further reading on the appeal judgment, see blogs posts: Court of Appeal dismisses appeal in IPO case and Court of Appeal provides clarity on pension rights of bankrupts.
Interviewed by Kate Beaumont.
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
If you are a LexisPSL Subscriber, click the link below for further information:
Income payments orders: What is an IPO, who can apply when, what can be caught and how much can the trustee claim?
How a pension is dealt with in bankruptcy
Not a subscriber? Find out more about how LexisPSL can help you and click here for a free trial of LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency.
First published on LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency and LexisPSL Pensions
0330 161 1234