Insights

Can a Pension Be Used to Enforce a Judgment Debt?

Can a Pension Be Used to Enforce a Judgment Debt?

Judgment debts often raise complex questions about the assets against which they can be enforced. Among these complexities is the matter of pensions. Can an occupational or private pension be used to satisfy a judgment debt? Recent legal decisions provide valuable insight into these nuanced issues. This blog explores case law on this topic, focusing on Manolete Partners PLC v White [2024] EWCA Civ 1418 and Blight v Brester [2012] EWHC 165 (Ch), to provide clarity on the enforcement of judgment debts in relation to pensions.

The Enforcement of Judgment Debt and Pensions

Pensions are generally considered a form of financial security for retirement. However, when significant debts remain unpaid, creditors may attempt to access pensions as part of the enforcement process. This practice raises important legal considerations, particularly around statutory protections for pensions.

To address these concerns, two categories of pensions must be considered:

1. Occupational Pensions (typically provided through an employer).
2. Private Pensions (personal pensions funded by the individual).

The Complexities of Enforcement

Enforcement of judgment debt against pensions involves navigating legal restrictions under the Pensions Act 1995 and related legislation. While creditors may seek to enforce debts by obtaining third-party debt orders, pensions often fall into a protected category. This prompts crucial discussions around the rights of creditors, debtors, and the extent of judicial discretion in these cases.

Manolete Partners PLC v White [2024] EWCA Civ 1418

Key Details of the Case

The case of Manolete v White involved Manolete, a company that had obtained a judgment against Mr. White, an individual with occupational pension rights. The judgment remained unpaid, and Manolete attempted to secure enforcement measures by accessing Mr. White’s pension.

Manolete sought an injunction requiring Mr. White to draw down his occupational pension. The funds, once received, would be paid to Manolete to partially or fully discharge the judgment debt. However, Section 91(2) of the Pensions Act 1995 explicitly prohibits orders that prevent an individual from receiving their occupational pension. To circumvent this statutory protection, Manolete proposed a workaround whereby Mr. White would be required to draw down his pension, deposit it in his personal account and disclose his bank details to Manolete, against which a third-party order would be actioned against the funds.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the High Court. It held that the proposed order effectively breached the statutory prohibition under Section 91(2) of the Pensions Act 1995. The Court determined that:

• The prohibition against restraining the receipt of an occupational pension extended beyond direct actions and included indirect actions.
• It was neither “just” nor “convenient” for judicial orders to undermine statutory protections for occupational pensions.

It however emphasised the distinction drawn by the Pension Law Review Committee in its report on where it applied:

1. Monies that have been paid over or have become due for payment to a member of an occupational scheme;
2. Future pension entitlements or future pension rights to which the member may become entitled under the scheme in the future, for example, a member might opt for the trustees to pay future benefits to a spouse or other dependents instead of the member.

They court clarified that its only in the latter scenario that the bar under Section 91(2) applies, consistent with statutory purpose of the legislation, which was that a member’s entitlement or right to future benefits under the scheme should remain available, to provide support to that member in retirement. There is no bar to pension payments made or due to a scheme member to be treated differently as they have fallen into the members hands.

Implications

The ruling sets a clear precedent that future pension entitlements and rights cannot be accessed by creditors, even through complex legal strategies.

Blight v Brester [2012] EWHC 165 (Ch)

Key Details of the Case

Unlike Manolete v White, the case of Blight v Brester focused on private pensions. Here, Ms. Blight, a creditor, sought an injunction requiring Mr. Brester to draw down his private pension to settle a judgment debt. The High Court ruled in favour of granting the injunction, basing its decision on the debtor’s ability to access the funds if they so choose. Deputy High Court Judge Moss KC commented:

“[the] idea that the fraudster and forgery can enjoy an enhanced standard of living at his retirement instead of paying the judgment debt would be a very unattractive conclusion”

The Court differentiated private pensions from occupational pensions, citing the lack of equivalent statutory protections that applied to occupational pension schemes.

The High Court’s Reasoning

The Court held that:

• Private pensions, unlike occupational pensions, can be subject to mandatory injunctions.
• The debtor’s ability to access the pension provided sufficient grounds for it to be considered as a relevant asset in the enforcement process.
• Such an order was deemed just and proportional to achieve the enforcement objective.

Implications

The decision in Blight v Brester demonstrates that private pensions may be treated less stringently than occupational pensions in the context of enforcement. However, the grant of such an injunction remains subject to judicial discretion and consideration of proportionality.

Practical Considerations for Creditors

• Understanding the distinction between occupational and private pensions is crucial for creditors attempting to enforce judgments. Creditors must evaluate whether the pension falls within a protected category, that is, future entitlements or rights under an occupational pension scheme, and assess the viability of enforcement actions based on prior case law. Creditors should also be keen on developing jurisprudence in this area.

• Elements of fraud or forgery and director’s breach of fiduciary seem to be a common thread amongst these cases where such orders have been successfully obtained, seemingly intimating that they would only be granted in such circumstances, effectively limiting the application of the court’s judicial discretion under section 37 of the Senior courts Act by the court. However, what is to be considered “Just and Convenient”, the guiding principle for grant of injunctions is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Need Legal Guidance? Contact CJCH Solicitors for Expert Legal Advice

Navigating the enforcement of judgment debts can be a daunting task, particularly when pensions are involved. Whether you are a creditor exploring enforcement options or a debtor seeking to protect your pension, professional legal advice is essential.

Our experienced team specialises in debt recovery and enforcement. We can provide tailored guidance to help you achieve the best outcomes while navigating the complexities of modern legal frameworks.

Rated as ‘Excellent’ on Trustpilot.