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