Horton v Henry

Horton v Henry

Section 310 of the Insolvency Act 1986 does not empower the court to make an income payments order in respect of uncrystallised pensions, as the respondent is not entitled to payment until elections are made and the pension is in payment. The court has no power to require the respondent to crystallise his pension or to direct how he should exercise his options under the pension scheme.

Parties
Applicant: Robert William Leslie Horton; Respondent: Michael Gerard Henry
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Application for Income Payments Order
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Income Payments Order, Uncrystallised Pension Rights, Trustee Powers in Bankruptcy

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert William Leslie Horton

Applicant

Michael Gerard Henry

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy / Application for Income Payments Order

  1. 1 Whether the court has power under section 310 of the Insolvency Act 1986 to make an Income Payments Order in respect of a pension which is not in payment
  2. 2 If such power exists, what amount, if any, out of sums to be drawn from the respondent's pensions should be retained by the respondent rather than paid to the Trustee

Ratio Decidendi

Section 310 of the Insolvency Act 1986 does not empower the court to make an income payments order in respect of uncrystallised pensions, as the respondent is not entitled to payment until elections are made and the pension is in payment. The court has no power to require the respondent to crystallise his pension or to direct how he should exercise his options under the pension scheme.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed