Case: Century Property (Leeds) Ltd v Eville & Jones (Group) Ltd [2025] EWHC 1348 (KB)

What Happened?

In this case, the High Court decided that if someone owes money following a Court judgment and has failed to make payment, the Court may order that the debt is paid out of the debtor’s personal pension.

Background

As part of existing proceedings, Dr Aldiss, the Respondent to the proceedings, agreed to the terms of a Tomlin Order where he agreed to pay the sum of £450,000 in two instalments, one of which was due to be paid from Dr Aldiss’ personal pension scheme.

Dr Aldiss failed to make payment in accordance with the Tomlin Order as agreed. As part of the Tomlin Order, Dr Aldiss agreed that, if he failed to make payment in accordance with the terms of the Tomlin Order, the whole £450,000 would become immediately due and payable.

As a result of Dr Aldiss’ failure to make payment, the Applicant secured a legal charge over Dr Aldiss’ personal pension.

The Applicant asked the Court for an order to make Dr Aldiss use his pension funds to make payment of the debt owed.

This request was grounded on the principles established in Blight v Brewster [2012] EWHC 165 (Ch) which established that debtors should not be allowed to shield assets in pension funds when they have a right to withdraw money needed to satisfy judgment debts.

The Court’s Decision

The Court agreed that it was fair to let the Applicant enforce the debt using the pension for the following reasons:

  • Dr Aldiss was entitled to take benefits from the pension fund upon reaching the age of 55.

  • Nothing within Dr Aldiss’ pension documents restricted the Court’s ability to make the order being sought.

  • The pension had enough funds in it to pay the whole debt.

  • Even though taking money out of a pension can have tax implications, the Court considered that the tax implications were not enough to prevent the pension funds being used to satisfy the debt.

  • The Tomlin Order provided for the use of the pension fund to pay part of the balance owed.

  • There was no evidence of other people owed money or other assets to use to satisfy the debt.

  • The Applicant acted quickly and properly.

  • Dr Aldiss had not cooperated previously, so the Court considered that stronger action was needed.

Conclusion

This case confirms the established principle founded in Blight v Brewster where, if a creditor owes money and has a personal pension they can access, the Court may, in certain circumstances, order that the debtor uses that personal pension to satisfy the debt owed to the creditor.

This enforcement method is seen as both complex and evolving, if you are struggling to pay debts or if you have a creditor attempting to attack a pension fund, it is important to get legal advice as soon as possible. For help with your situation, call 0845 287 0939, get in touch by email, or use the online chat below.