header-logo header-logo

19 April 2012
Issue: 7510 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Pensions

Raithatha (as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Michael Roy Williamson) v Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch), [2012] All ER (D) 909 (Apr)

On the proper interpretation of s 310(7) of the Insolvency Act 1986, a bankrupt did have an entitlement to a payment under a pension scheme, not merely where the scheme was in payment of benefit but also where, under the rules of the scheme, he would be entitled to payment merely by asking for payment. That interpretation was not an unjustifiable interference with his rights to property in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, there was nothing to prevent a one-off payment, or a number of one-off payments on different occasions from different sources as a result of different entitlements, being regarded as payments in the nature of income from time to time made to him.
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll