Our website is set to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click "Continue" or simply continue browsing. Continue.

Insolvency Law

Expert guidance on all aspects of corporate and personal insolvency

01 MAY 2012

Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch)

(Chancery Division, Bernard Livesey QC (sitting as a deputy High Court judge), 4 April 2012)

W, the bankrupt, was a member of a pension scheme and had elected not to draw down his pension entitlement, both a tax free lump sum and an annuity. R, the trustee in bankruptcy, applied for an income payments order and, without notice, obtained an injunction preventing W from dealing with his interests under the scheme. In a controversial decision, Bernard Livesey QC (sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court) continued the injunction until the final determination of the income payments application. The fact that W had elected not to take his pension was one of the matters that the court could take into account in determining what was fair and appropriate. There should be no distinction between a bankrupt who had elected to receive his pension pre-bankruptcy and one who had not. It is thought that the decision is subject to an appeal.

Bankruptcy and Personal Insolvency Reports

Bankruptcy and Personal Insolvency Reports

"BPIR is an excellent series, of interest to both corporate and personal insolvency lawyers,...

More Info from £166.00
Available in Insolvency Law Online
Individual Voluntary Arrangements

Individual Voluntary Arrangements

"This is the ultimate statement of where the law on IVAs is to be found in our great common law...

Available in Insolvency Law Online
Subscribe to our newsletters