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
Following on from our blog post: Court of Appeal dismisses appeal in IPO case, Simon Passfield, specialist insolvency barrister at Guildhall Chambers, examines the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Horton v Henry and discusses what it means for bankrupt pension holders and their creditors, as well as practitioners.
Horton (as trustee in bankruptcy of Michael Gerard Henry) v Henry  EWCA Civ 989,  All ER (D) 50 (Oct)
The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the trustee in bankruptcy’s appeal, thus holding, that section 333(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), read in conjunction with IA 1986, s 310, did not enable a trustee in bankruptcy to require a bankrupt, who had reached the age at which he was contractually entitled to draw down or ‘crystallise’ his pension (but had not done so), to elect to do so, so that the trustee might apply for an income payments order, under IA 1986, s 310, in relation to the funds drawn, or to be drawn, down. Since rights under registered personal pension schemes no longer formed part of the bankrupt’s estate which vested in the trustee, in the absence of express statutory language conferring such a power, there was no basis for concluding that the court had power to require a bankrupt to exercise his options in any particular way.
In Raithatha v Williamson (a bankrupt)  EWHC 909 (Ch),  All ER (D) 57 (Apr), Bernard Livesey QC held that the court could make an income payments order (IPO) in respect of a bankrupt who, having reached the age of 55, was entitled (but had not yet elected) to draw down his pension, on the basis that he had ‘become entitled’ to the income from the pension for the purposes of IA 1986, s 310(7). That decision was considered to be controversial and was the subject of significant academic criticism. However, the case settled before it reached the Court of Appeal.
In Horton v Henry  EWHC 4209 (Ch),  All ER (D) 193 (Dec), Robert Englehart QC reached the opposite conclusion, holding that a bankrupt did not ‘become entitled’ to payment from his pension unless and until he exercised his right to elect to crystallise the pension.
The Court of Appeal was required to resolve the uncertainty caused by these two conflicting High Court decisions.
In her judgment (at para ), Gloster LJ identified the following issues which (at least theoretically) arose for determination:
The court held that the bankrupt’s contractual right to elect to draw down his pension was very different in character from an actual payment or the right to receive that actual payment, once the relevant election has been made. Such right did not fall within the definition of income in IA 1986, s 310(7).
Moreover, IA 1986, s 333(1) (which provides that the bankrupt must do all such things as the trustee may for the purposes of carrying out his functions reasonably require) did not enable the trustee to require the bankrupt to exercise his right to elect to receive payment because it cannot be said that the trustee has ‘functions’ in relation to property which is expressly excluded from the bankrupt’s estate.
To reach a contrary conclusion would ‘drive a coach and horses’ through the protection afforded to a bankrupt’s pension rights by the amendments made to IA 1986 by the pension legislation. It was also significant that there were no statutory criteria informing the court as to how it should direct the bankrupt to exercise the relevant options available to him.
On its face, the judgment provides welcome clarity in overruling the (somewhat unexpected) decision in Raithatha and confirming that pension income will only be included in the assessment of a bankrupt’s income on an IPO application once the bankrupt has exercised his right to elect to receive payment.
However, it leaves open the problem identified by the Insolvency Service in the guidance given to official receivers following the decision at first instance, namely that where an individual is entitled to elect to draw down his pension and the fund value exceeds his total unsecured liabilities, he may not meet the insolvency test and therefore cannot present a petition for his own bankruptcy. This means that trustees in bankruptcy may need to consider whether it is necessary to apply for an annulment in appropriate cases.
As Registrar Jones observed in Hinton v Wotherspoon  EWHC 621,  All ER (D) 43 (Jun) (in which he followed the decision at first instance in Henry), in the case of bankrupt pension holders there is now a distinction to be drawn between the ‘ill informed’, who have elected to draw their pension prior to bankruptcy and thus can be subject to an IPO and the ‘better informed’, who can keep their pension ‘safe’ from their creditors by leaving it uncrystallised.
It may be thought that this has the potential to place the interests of the bankrupt unfairly ahead of those of his creditors in cases (such as Henry) where the bankrupt’s pension is more than sufficient to meet his reasonable future needs. However, Gloster LJ has highlighted the potential role which IA 1986, ss 342A–C (which enable a trustee to claw back excessive pension contributions made by the bankrupt where such contributions have unfairly prejudiced the bankrupt’s creditors) may play in redressing the balance (see paras  and  of her judgment). At present, there is paucity of jurisprudence in relation to these provisions but this is no doubt an area that will see further development in the future.
Simon Passfield undertakes litigation and advisory work in all aspects of corporate and personal insolvency law. He has been consistently recognised as a leading junior in this field by Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 and has appeared in more than 20 reported insolvency cases.
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
0330 161 1234