Manolete Partners PLC v Ian Russell White

Manolete Partners PLC v Ian Russell White

The court held that section 91 of the Pensions Act 1995 does not prevent the making of an order requiring the respondent to draw down his pension fund, as the order enables rather than restrains access to the pension. The court found the proposed notification provisions necessary and proportionate to enable the applicant to enforce the judgment. The source of the pension fund was a relevant consideration in the exercise of discretion.

Parties
Applicant: Manolete Partners PLC; Respondent: Ian Russell White
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Application / Judgment on Form of Order and Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Order granted; permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Judgment, Pension Fund Drawdown, Section 91 Pensions Act 1995, Order for Sale, Asset Disclosure
Insolvency Pensions Enforcement of Judgment Pension Fund Drawdown Section 91 Pensions Act 1995 Order for Sale Asset Disclosure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manolete Partners PLC

Applicant

Ian Russell White

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Insolvency Application / Judgment on Form of Order and Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 91 of the Pensions Act 1995 prevents the court from making an order requiring the respondent to draw down his pension fund for enforcement of a judgment debt
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to refuse the order sought by the applicant under the Blight v Brewster jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the proposed policing provisions in the order are necessary and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 91 of the Pensions Act 1995 does not prevent the making of an order requiring the respondent to draw down his pension fund, as the order enables rather than restrains access to the pension. The court found the proposed notification provisions necessary and proportionate to enable the applicant to enforce the judgment. The source of the pension fund was a relevant consideration in the exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

Order granted; permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Respondent to notify applicant of nominated UK bank account by 4 p.m. on specified date
  • Respondent to give written notice to pension scheme trustees to draw down entire remaining pension fund and direct payment to nominated account