Thomas Robinson , KC
Thomas Robinson has a strong commercial / chancery practice with particular emphasis on pensions, insolvency and commercial litigation (including IT matters). He has been recommended as a leading junior by The Legal 500 and Chambers UK for several years. Recent pensions & insolvency cases include the Re Nortel/Lehman litigation, up to and including the Supreme Court, Re Storm Funding, and other cases brought by the Pensions Regulator such as MG Rover, Bonas and Carrington Wire.
He has been nominated as 'Insolvency / Restructuring Junior of the Year' at the Chambers UK Bar Awards and was 'highly commended' in Legal Week's 'Stars at the Bar'.
Thomas has been recommended in the legal directories for a number of years. Recent entries include: 'He is brilliant and he grows in strength all the time.' (Pensions, Chambers & Partners 2016); 'He's shown himself to be very bright ' he can pick up any issue you throw at him, is very pragmatic and is great on his feet and at providing opinions.' (Restructuring / Insolvency, Chambers & Partners 2016).
Practice Area
Panel
- Contributing Author
Qualified Year
- 2003
Membership
- Association of Pension Lawyers
- Insolvency Lawyers Association
- Society of Computers and Law
- Chancery Bar Association
Qualifications
- Highly commended' in Legal Week's 'Stars at the Bar', 2013
- Hardwicke Scholarship, Lincoln's Inn
- One of three nominees for Restructuring / Insolvency Junior of the Year, Chambers Bar Awards, 2013
Education
- MA (Hons) Corpus Christi College Oxford
4 Contributions by Thomas Robinson
PRACTICE NOTES
FSDs and Contribution Notices in insolvency: Nortel/Lehman confirms provable debts, not administration expenses; priority, provability and moratorium implications (England and Wales)
Summary
This Practice Note outlines the position of Financial Support Directions (FSDs) under the Pensions Act 2004 (PA 2004), with a particular focus on how FSD liabilities rank in insolvency, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Nortel/Lehman. The ruling offers key guidance on:
the priority of FSD liabilities on an insolvency
the correct interpretation of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, r 14.1 (previously the Insolvency Rules 1986 (IR 1986), SI 1986/1925, r 13.12(1)(b)), which defines contingent debts provable in an insolvency
the character of insolvency expenses
the extent, if any, of the court’s residual discretion to order payments outside the statutory distribution regime
The decision also addressed the treatment of contribution notices issued under PA 2004, s 47 (section 47 CNs), which serve to enforce compliance with FSDs...
Restructuring & Insolvency
PRACTICE NOTES
Insolvency office-holders and adverse costs in litigation: personal liability, recoupment from the estate, discontinuance, priority of orders, and security for costs (England and Wales)
This Practice Note sets out the following facets and issues concerning an office-holder’s exposure to adverse costs in litigation:
the overall position where an office-holder is a claimant or a defendant in proceedings
the office-holder’s entitlement to reimbursement from the insolvent estate
the possible costs implications of discontinuing a claim
the potential ranking of any adverse costs order
the personal exposure of office-holders for adverse costs
security for costs
The general position if an office-holder is a claimant or defendant in litigation
If an office-holder issues proceedings in their own name, they proceed entirely at their own risk as to costs. Should a costs order be made against them, they are personally liable and cannot confine that liability to the extent of assets available in the insolvent estate (Re Wilson Lovatt & Sons). However, unless the court directs otherwise, they will have a right to reimburse the amount of any adverse costs order from the insolvent estate. That right is, of course, only of value to the extent the estate holds assets...
Restructuring & Insolvency
PRACTICE NOTES
Practitioners’ Guide to the Pensions Regulator’s Determinations Panel: Powers, Standard and Special Procedures, Reserved Functions, Compulsory Reviews and Upper Tribunal References
What is the Determinations Panel?
The Pensions Regulator’s Determinations Panel (the Panel) is a committee that decides whether the Pensions Regulator (the Regulator) should exercise certain key regulatory functions in appropriate cases. When it concludes a function ought to be exercised, the Panel then carries out that function itself.
Establishment and composition
Under Section 9(1) of the Pensions Act 2004 (PeA 2004), the Regulator must constitute and maintain the Panel. The Panel comprises a Chair plus at least six further individuals. An ‘appointments committee’, created by the Regulator’s chair, nominates the Chair, who is then appointed by the Regulator’s Board. The remaining members are proposed by the Panel’s Chair and appointed by the Regulator’s Board. Panel members are not required to be lawyers. They collectively possess legal, business and/or pensions expertise. They are not permitted to be members of the Regulator or its staff, nor members of the Pension Protection Fund or its staff. The current make-up of the Panel is set out on the Regulator’s website at any given time...
Pensions
PRACTICE NOTES
The Pensions Regulator's moral hazard powers: contribution notices and financial support directions: tests, procedure, reasonableness, guidance, case law, clearance and Pension Schemes Act 2021 criminal offences
The Pensions Regulator (the Regulator)
The Regulator is an arm’s-length public body set up under the Pensions Act 2004 (PeA 2004). Its authority to impose contribution notices and financial support directions appears in PeA 2004, ss 38–50. Although the Act does not use the label, these provisions are widely known as the Regulator’s ‘moral hazard’ powers. Their purpose is to counter the ‘moral hazard’ arising from the Pension Protection Fund (PPF): the possibility that corporate groups might organise their structures so as to heighten exposure within their pension schemes, comfortable that the PPF would intervene if the employer entered insolvency. The principal moral hazard tools—and the only ones exercised so far—are the power to issue a contribution notice (CN) and the power to issue a financial support direction (FSD). A CN compels the recipient to pay a specified amount into a defined benefit occupational pension scheme. A CN can be issued where the criteria in PeA 2004, s 38 are satisfied. These mechanisms exist to deter behaviour that would expose schemes to greater detriment, relying on the PPF to absorb losses if an employer fails. The Regulator’s powers in PeA 2004 protect members through CNs and FSDs as well overall...
Restructuring & Insolvency
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
