Manolete Partners PLC v Ian Russell White

When an appeal raises seriously arguable issues of wider potential importance, and an appellant becomes unrepresented because representation is no longer affordable, the Court of Appeal may adjourn to enable an attempt to obtain specialist pro bono assistance. It may relist the appeal for a full-day hearing and direct advance service of any revised skeleton argument. The supplied judgment records those procedural steps; it does not record a final decision on the underlying construction of the Pensions Act 1995.

This was an appeal by Ian Russell White against decisions of His Honour Judge Hodge KC in the Business and Property Courts in Manchester, reported at [2023] EWHC 567 (Ch) and [2023] EWHC 1350 (Ch). The lower court held that section 91(2) of the Pensions Act 1995 did not prohibit an order under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 requiring a judgment debtor to exercise a right to draw down occupational pension monies to meet a judgment debt.

Shortly before the appeal, Mr White notified the respondent that he would act in person because he could no longer fund representation. The Court considered the issues seriously arguable and of wider potential importance, and addressed the opportunity for pro bono representation and the appropriate length of the hearing.

1. Adjournment. The Court of Appeal considered that the appeal should be adjourned because the appellant had become unrepresented shortly before the hearing and the issues were seriously arguable and of wider potential importance to occupational pensions generally.
2. Fair ventilation of issues. The adjournment was intended to give the appellant an opportunity to attempt to obtain representation, ideally from specialist counsel, so that the statutory issues could be properly addressed in oral argument.
3. Listing and directions. The appeal was to be relisted for a full-day hearing rather than the half-day originally allocated. The court accepted the respondent’s request that efforts to obtain representation should be made without undue delay and permitted the matter to be brought directly to the attention of Advocate. If a new skeleton argument was filed for the appellant, it was to be provided to the respondent at least 14 days before the adjourned hearing.

The supplied text ends at the adjournment stage. It contains no final determination by this court of the meaning or effect of section 91(2) of the Pensions Act 1995, or of the substantive appeal.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was adjourned so that the appellant could attempt to obtain pro bono representation, and it was to be relisted for a full-day hearing.
2. Business and Property Courts in Manchester: His Honour Judge Hodge KC decided that section 91(2) of the Pensions Act 1995 did not prohibit the proposed order and that it was just and convenient to make it on certain terms, in [2023] EWHC 567 (Ch) and [2023] EWHC 1350 (Ch).