Healy v Irish Life Staff Benefits Scheme
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Donnelly |
| Judgment Date | 26 January 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] IEHC 28 |
| Docket Number | [RECORD NO. 2017 11398 P] |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 26 January 2018 |
[2018] IEHC 28
[RECORD NO. 2017 11398 P]
THE HIGH COURT
Employment - Bankruptcy entitlement to deferred pension - Appointment of Trustee in Bankruptcy ('TIB') - Assets in bankruptcy
Facts: The plaintiff sought injunctive and other reliefs against the defendants. The plaintiff asked directions from the Court that the Court would protect his pension by way of providing legal representatives to him in the UK. The plaintiff had been adjudged as bankrupt in the UK bankruptcy proceedings.
Ms. Justice Donnelly dismissed all the relief to the plaintiff. The Court, however, held over certain claims of the plaintiff, wherein the plaintiff had been seeking his medical records. The Court stated that it did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the issue in the present case. The Court further held that the UK Court had the jurisdiction to deal with the case.
This matter came before me on 24th January, 2018 pursuant to a notice of motion issued by the plaintiff seeking injunctive and other reliefs. The reliefs claimed are almost identical to the reliefs claimed in the plenary summons dated 14th December, 2017. Both defendants have adopted identical attitudes in respect of the plaintiff's claims and the second defendants adopted the submissions of the first defendant as their own.
Both defendants have entered memoranda of appearance contesting the jurisdiction of the High Court. Both defendants have issued motions seeking to dismiss or stay the proceedings on the grounds that 'exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of these proceedings is conferred on the courts of England and Wales by virtue of the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of Council of 20th May 2015 on insolvency proceedings' (as claimed by the first named defendant) and for orders setting aside service of the plenary summons or staying the proceedings '[b]y reason of the courts of England having exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the matters pleaded in the plenary summons' (in the case of the second defendant). There is a certain urgency in giving this judgment as some of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff concern an oral hearing listed before the High Court of England and Wales on 5th February, 2018.
The core facts are not in dispute. In February 1985, the plaintiff became an employee of the second defendant. It appears that up to November 1990, he was a member of the Irish Life Staff Pension Scheme ('the old scheme'). Those members, assets and liabilities were all transferred to the Irish Life Staff Benefits Scheme ('the new scheme') by order of the High Court on 6th November, 1990, following the public flotation of the second defendant. The first defendants are the trustees of the new scheme.
In or about May 2011, the plaintiff left the employment of the second defendant. In his affidavit, the plaintiff makes complaints about his treatment by the second defendant. It appears he compromised an action against the second defendant in or about May 2011 when he agreed to take statutory redundancy. The only reference in the Plenary Summons (and in the Notice of Motion) to issues concerning his employment is an indirect one; a claim that medical reports from his time at Irish Life be made available to him. When the plaintiff left his employment with the second defendant, he became a deferred member of the new scheme with an entitlement to a deferred pension rather than a pension in payment.
Like many other people in Ireland affected by the downturn in the economy, the plaintiff moved to the UK in or about October 2011. Matters did not work out for him there and in April 2013 he petitioned for bankruptcy in the United Kingdom.
By order of the High Court in Manchester dated 19th July, 2013, he was adjudicated bankrupt. That Order records the application of the EC Insolvency Regulation to the proceedings and states that the proceedings are main proceedings as defined in Article 3 of the EC Regulation. That is a reference to Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 which was then in force.
In November 2013, a Trustee in Bankruptcy ('TIB') of the estate of the plaintiff in bankruptcy was appointed in the United Kingdom. This TIB claimed an entitlement to the plaintiff's rights and benefits under the new scheme.
By further Order of July 2014, the plaintiff was discharged from bankruptcy. While that Order is silent as to any other matter, it is not in dispute between the parties that the plaintiff's assets in bankruptcy remain vested in the TIB who has a continuing duty to realise them. It is the extent of his assets in bankruptcy that forms the central core of the plaintiff's complaints in this jurisdiction as well as in the United Kingdom.
In March 2017, the plaintiff made an application to the UK High Court, Chancery Division, to have his pension under the new scheme excluded from his estate in bankruptcy. A decision was given by the relevant judge in September 2017 refusing the relief sought by him. By Order of the said judge in October 2017, costs were awarded against the plaintiff. There is no stay on this order. Leave to appeal was refused but it now appears that the matter is listed for an oral reconsideration of the application for leave to appeal on 5th February, 2018.
In the plenary summons the plaintiff claims:
1. 'Injunction reliefs seeking an order directing Irish Life Staff Benefits Scheme and Irish Life Assurance to stop all correspondence with trustee in bankrupt, debt focus, Anthony Fisher or legal representatives.
2. To prevent any payment to said Mr. Anthony Fisher, trustee and bankruptcy insolvency in relation to Irish Life Staff Benefits Scheme.
3. To reimburse any payment taken from the Irish Life Staff Benefits Scheme in relation to court order above.
4. To apply to the relevant court to have Irish Life Staff Benefits Scheme and its beneficiaries approved by HMRC or excluded from bankruptcy under UK law or apply to have judgment ruled by the ECJ through the necessary court jurisdiction.
5. Indemnify me against any costs in relation to Part 5 of the same order 5020 of 2013 made by Judge Obodai on the 11th October, 2017.
6. To make available immediately funds for existing costs to date and any further costs for my legal representation in the oral appeal in Manchester High Court Appeal Centre on Monday 5th February, 2017. This should also include funds in relation to any connected matters between Irish Life and Irish Life Staff Benefits Scheme.
7. Make available all files in relation to myself, John Healy, that have been previously discussed between Irish Life, Irish Life Staff Benefits Scheme, Anthony Fisher, Debt Focus Solicitors, Pension Authority, Pension Ombudsman, Financial Ombudsman, Data Commissioners and any other agency.
8. All medical records from Chief Medical Officers including independent medical reports to made available to me.
9. Pay relevant pensions to me, John Healy, taking into account my history and health related issues caused by this matter.
10. Be provided with any compensation ruled by a relevant judge.
11. Protection from the High Court.
12. Any other direction the honourable High Court judge provides.'
The notice of motion is in virtually identical terms and need not be repeated. The plaintiff was not prepared to fully concede at the oral hearing that some of these claimed reliefs were more in the nature of final orders that a court might usually only make after a full hearing of the case. The plaintiff appeared as a litigant in person and he does not appear to have any legal training. There is no doubt that in bringing and arguing his case, he is putting forward what he truly believes is a genuine grievance and is doing so to the best of his ability.
In his affidavit, the plaintiff sets out a detailed history of what he says were his interactions with his employer, the second defendant, over the years of his employment. He also outlines how initially when he was involved with the insolvency service in the UK, they took the view that his entitlements under the new scheme was worth zero, in other words, that the new scheme was not an asset in bankruptcy. He believes that the UK courts and the TIB erred in holding otherwise.
The plaintiff makes various complaints that he did not receive full documentation from the first defendant as to communications with the TIB. He explains how the TIB wanted to have him draw his pension and arrange for an income payment and/or qualifying agreement but he did not agree with this as in his view, the pension should be automatically excluded from the bankruptcy estate as a UK approved pension. He refers to a UK decision of Horton v. Henry [2016] EWCA Civ 989 which he submits says that a pension not in payment cannot be forced to be drawn by UK bankruptcy trustees.
In his affidavit he seeks protection of the benefit scheme that was set up in this jurisdiction in 1990. A central complaint in that affidavit is that the first defendants, as pension trustees, have taken no responsibility in making sure that this pension, which was set up by the High Court, was protected from bankruptcy in the UK. He claims that they did nothing to contest that his pension should not form part of the bankruptcy under UK or EU law; in circumstances where the old scheme had been exempt i.e. it had been approved by the UK Revenue Commissioners ('HMRC'), and the new scheme that replaced it, however, is not. It appears that the old scheme included members who were employed in the UK but that in 1990 none of the employees in the new scheme were at that time employed in the United...
To continue reading
Request your trial