Aadal Shafiq examines recent caselaw, revealing a growing trend to prioritise creditors' rights in debt recovery from pension funds.
Updated November 2025
Historical protection of pensions
Until fairly recently, pension funds were protected from enforcement by creditors with court judgments against non-paying debtors. This was still the case in 2003 in Field v Field, where the court held it had no power to allow enforcement of an ancillary relief order made in a divorce against the non-paying party.
The judgment in Field v Field examines section 37 Senior Courts Act 1981. This provision gives the court wide powers to grant injunctions for the purpose of enforcing judgment debts against assets. The court concluded that the power could not be used as a 'stand-alone'. It can only be exercised when the claimant has an existing right to enforce against a particular asset, for example, a property.
More recent decisions show courts beginning to grant injunctions using this power. Scrutiny of the timeline of recent cases presents an approach that is becoming less tolerant of debtors who appear to hide their wealth in pension funds to the detriment of their creditors.
A change in the courts' approach
In 2012, Blight v Brewster marked the first shift in the courts' approach. The court restored a third-party debt order to access a 25% lump sum from the judgment debtor's pension. A third-party debt order is a method of enforcement that allows a judgment creditor to access assets of the debtor, most commonly money in a bank account.
The judge commented that “debtors should not be allowed to hide their assets in pension funds when they had a right to withdraw monies needed to pay their creditors”. The court found that it had jurisdiction under section 37 Senior Courts Act 1981 to grant an injunction ordering the debtor to draw down on their pension.
This opened up the possibility of the enforcement of a judgment debt against a debtor’s pension where the debtor is over the age of 55 and has not yet accessed their pension fund.
Application of Blight v Brewster
There have been several court cases including four notable judgments since 2022, adopting a ‘Blight v Brewster’ relief approach.
In Bacci v Green (2022), the judgment debtor had held an interest in an occupational pension scheme. The court imposed an injunction under section 37 Senior Courts Act 1981 ordering Green to delegate the right to call for a lump sum under the pension scheme once he turned 55. The lump sum was to satisfy outstanding debts that had been incurred fraudulently.
Not just for fraud - Brake v Guy, Lindsay v O'Loughnane
In both the Blight case and Bacci case, the debts related to fraud. That changed in 2023, with Brake v Guy. This protracted litigation is better known for its mental health crisis moratorium implications. Here, the judgment debt was not fraudulently incurred, yet an injunction was granted ordering the debtor to exercise their right to draw down their pension entitlement under a third-party debt order. The proceedings had been hostile throughout, and some commenters noted this was the judgment of a court at the end of its tether.
Breach of directors duties
The court had already extended the potential scope for enforcement of judgments against pensions in the 2022 case of Lindsay v O'Loughnane. The judgment against the defendant was not incurred through fraud, but rather through a breach of directors’ duties and subsequent insolvency.
The court ordered O’Loughnane to give written notice to his pension providers requesting access to the funds on the retirement date, or age 55 if later. It required the pension provider to pay the claimant directly. This demonstrates that a court can order payment of the entirety of the pension to be paid to a creditor and not just the tax-free lump sum. The judge felt that the starting presumption in these situations is "…that the court should assist the judgment creditor to recover the debt due to him” and that it was "just, equitable and convenient" to make the order.
Manolete Partners v White [2024]
However, the Court of Appeal took a different view and changed the position in the Manolete Partners case.
Mr White was a director of Lloyds British Testing Limited until the company went into liquidation in 2017. Over 20 months before the company’s liquidation, Mr White had accessed company assets to make various purchases. These included luxury cars, luxury holidays, and a helicopter. He had acquired property for himself and his son.
In October 2023, Manolete Partners PLC v White saw the High Court grant an injunction forcing the respondent to draw down his pension for breach of director’s duties.
The court followed the approach taken in Blight v Brewster and held that it could, and should, compel Mr White to draw down on his pension fund to satisfy a judgment debt for breach of director's duties. The court felt it was appropriate for the court to exercise its jurisdiction under section 37 Senior Courts Act 1981 to make the order sought.
The court confirmed that section 91(2) Pensions Act 1995 is no bar to the making of this order. An order would require a payment to be made to Manolete rather than remaining tied up in the pension scheme.
Mr White appealed.
The Court of Appeal reversed the High Court's decision, holding that the latter was wrong to conclude that ordering Mr White to draw down his pension was not prohibited by section 91(2).
The correct approach must consider the order requested against the statutory purpose of section 91(2) which was to protect a person's right to receive their future pension for their own benefit.
The conclusion that because the order provided that Mr White would receive payments into an account in his own name section 91(2) was not contravened had been artificial, and non-purposive in its interpretation of the statute.
It would be an illegitimate exercise of statutory power for the court to exercise its discretion under section 37 Senior Courts Act 1981 to make the order because it would bring about a result prohibited by statute.
The case could be distinguished from Blight v Brewster and Bacci v Green as there was no suggestion Mr White was guilty of fraud.
Misfeasance does not necessarily amount to fraud, negligence or criminality for which the exemption under section 91(5) Pensions Act might allow an order 'enabling the employer to obtain the discharge by him of some monetary obligation due to the employer'.
This decision represents a significant change in direction from the senior courts on the question of creditor enforcement against future, undrawn occupational pension rights.
This judgment does not apply to personal pension schemes.
Risks of pensions enforcement for judgment debtors
It is worth noting that a court's decision can differ from case to case depending on its facts. The above cases involved debtors involved in some kind of misconduct, such as fraud or a breach of duties. They are not average debtors with consumer debts and a regular occupational pension. Advisers need not be unduly concerned with the application of these cases to clients who have not been involved in fraud or misconduct.