ARTICLE
22 May 2023

High Court Compels Another Judgment Debtor To Drawdown Pension To Pay Creditor

NR
Norton Rose Fulbright

Contributor

Norton Rose Fulbright provides a full scope of legal services to the world’s preeminent corporations and financial institutions. The global law firm has more than 3,000 lawyers advising clients across more than 50 locations worldwide, including London, Houston, New York, Toronto, Mexico City, Hong Kong, Sydney and Johannesburg, covering Europe, the United States, Canada, Latin America, Asia, Australia, Africa and the Middle East. With its global business principles of quality, unity and integrity, Norton Rose Fulbright is recognized for its client service in key industries, including financial institutions; energy, infrastructure and resources; technology; transport; life sciences and healthcare; and consumer markets.

Judgment for breach of fiduciary duty, namely causing the company to make payments for his own financial benefit, had been obtained.
United Kingdom Employment and HR

In Manolete Partners Plc v White [2023], the High Court granted the claimant's application to require a pension scheme member to drawdown pension benefits to satisfy an unpaid judgment debt of some £996,000 for breach of director's duties.

The order was granted against White, a defaulting director of a company which had gone into liquidation in 2016, then subsequently into a creditors' voluntary liquidation process. In the 20 months leading up to the company's liquidation, White had made numerous payments out of company assets, including the purchase of luxury cars and holidays, expenditure on his own and his son's properties, and the acquisition and operation of a helicopter.

Judgment for breach of fiduciary duty, namely causing the company to make payments for his own financial benefit, had been obtained. The debt, and other substantial sums, were due to the company's creditors, including the claimant. The respondent had not made a bankruptcy application.

The court directed payment of the respondent's pension pot to a nominated UK bank account in the respondent's name, and there was thus no contravention of the prohibition in section 91 of the Pensions Act 1995 as the respondent was not restrained from receiving his pension benefits but rather the opposite: the payment of the pension pot was made to the respondent, rather than remaining within the scheme wrapper.

The court held that White should not be entitled to retain his pension, derived entirely from company monies, whilst the judgment debt entered against him remained wholly unpaid.

In recent years, there have been several cases in which a pension saver has been compelled by the Court to access their pension fund to pay a creditor. There is now an established principle that debtors cannot protect assets in pension funds when they have a right to make withdrawals which could be used to satisfy a judgment debt. For more detail, please see our December 2022 briefing: Hands off my pension! How safe are judgment debtors' and bankrupts' pensions from creditors?

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More