Hayes v Butters and another – WLR Daily

Posted December 18th, 2014 in bankruptcy, damages, harassment, law reports, trustees in bankruptcy by sally

Hayes v Butters and another [2014] WLR (D) 536

‘In a claim for harassment pursuant to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, where the claimant claimed personal loss and financial loss, the claim was a hybrid claim which vested in the trustee in bankruptcy.’

WLR Daily, 10th December 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Hayes v Hayes – WLR Daily

Posted June 20th, 2014 in appeals, bankruptcy, civil procedure rules, cross-examination, law reports by tracey

Hayes v Hayes: [2014] WLR (D) 267

‘Cross-examination was not appropriate on the hearing of a bankruptcy petition. The appeal court should be slow to depart from the regular practice of registrars, which was to decide such hearings without cross-examination. The insolvency court was not a suitable forum for the trying of disputes.’

WLR Daily, 12th June 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

The implications for bankrupts of the recent Budget announcement on pensions: have we gone full circle? – 11 Stone Buildings

Posted June 5th, 2014 in bankruptcy, budgets, news, pensions by sally

‘There has long been a tension between two competing public interests: encouraging individuals to save and provide for their financial security in old age on the one hand and providing recourse for creditors in the event of debtors being unable to pay their debts on the other. Historically, the legislative trend has generally been in favour of the creditor. The Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (“WRPA 99”), which came into force on 29 May 2000, appeared to provide fundamental changes to the relationship between these two competing policies. In 2012, however, when these reforms came before the court in Raithatha v Williamson the result indicated that WRPA 99 may have been far less significant than was previously supposed. If Williamson was correctly decided, then the changes to pension law introduced in the March 2014 Budget will have effectively unravelled those reforms altogether. Alaric Watson explains.’

Full story

11 Stone Buildings, May 2014

Source: www.11sb.com

Finance and Divorce Update – Family Law Week

‘Jessica Craigs, senior solicitor, and David Salter, Joint Head of Family Law, both of Mills & Reeve LLP analyse the financial remedies and divorce news and cases published in April.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 17th May 2014

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Salliss v Hunt – WLR Daily

Salliss v Hunt [2014] EWHC 229(Ch); [2014] WLR (D) 56

‘When considering whether or not to grant an application to annul a bankruptcy order there was no reason in principle why the court should take any account of a debt due to a creditor where the creditor was aware of the bankruptcy but had never submitted a proof and had made an informed commercial decision not to lodge one in the future.’

WLR Daily, 10th February 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Helman v Keepers and Governors of the Possessions, Revenues and Goods of the Free Grammar School of John Lyon – WLR Daily

Helman v Keepers and Governors of the Possessions, Revenues and Goods of the Free Grammar School of John Lyon [2014] EWCA Civ 17; [2014] WLR (D) 20

‘Where the tenant of a long lease became bankrupt, a notice claiming to exercise the right of enfranchisement, pursuant to Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, served in the name of the bankrupt tenant by a receiver, appointed by a sub-chargee of the property, was invalid as by the time the notice was served the tenant was no longer the tenant as his tenancy had vested in his trustee in bankruptcy.’

WLR Daily, 22nd January 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Davis and another v Price and another – WLR Daily

Posted January 23rd, 2014 in appeals, bankruptcy, debts, individual voluntary arrangements, law reports, news by sally

Davis and another v Price and another [2014] EWCA Civ 26; [2014] WLR (D) 16

‘The reference to a “further meeting” in section 262(4)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986 in relation to a nominee was a reference to a “further meeting under section 257” of the Act.’

WLR Daily, 21st January 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Young v Young – An Analysis of the Judgment – Family Law Week

Posted December 2nd, 2013 in bankruptcy, contempt of court, costs, disclosure, divorce, news by sally

‘Thomas Dudley, barrister, of 1 Garden Court Chambers provides a detailed guide to “as complicated a financial remedies case as has been dealt with by the courts”.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 2nd December 2013

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Judge sums up divorce tycoon Scot Young as a ‘fraudster’ – The Independent

Posted November 18th, 2013 in bankruptcy, divorce, fraud, news, solicitors by sally

“The bankrupt tycoon embroiled in Britain’s most high-profile divorce has been labelled a ‘fraudster’ in a separate High Court judgment. Scot Young, a property and telecoms magnate in the middle of an acrimonious battle against his estranged wife, has been caught up in separate litigation involving a former lawyer and one of his alleged creditors.”

Full story

The Independent, 17th November 2013

Source: www.independent.co.uk

Smith-Evans v Smailes – WLR Daily

Posted November 8th, 2013 in bankruptcy, individual voluntary arrangements, insolvency, law reports by tracey

Smith-Evans v Smailes: [2013] EWHC 3199 (Ch);   [2013] WLR (D)  423

“Where the chairman of a creditors’ meeting summoned under section 257 of the Insolvency Act 1986 had reported the meeting’s approval of a proposed voluntary arrangement to the court, the only route of challenge was under section 262 of the 1986 Act. That was so even if the meeting itself had not approved the arrangement, because the chairman had exceeded the terms of proxies that he held so there had in fact not been a 75% majority in favour of approval.”

WLR Daily, 29th July 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Liquidators are not data controllers under the Data Protection Act 1998 – Technology Law Update

Posted September 2nd, 2013 in bankruptcy, data protection, liquidators, loans, mortgages, news by sally

“The High Court has found that liquidators under a voluntary liquidation are not data controllers for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA” or “Act”) and so are not personally responsible for compliance with the Act.”

Full story

Technology Law Update, 2nd September 2013

Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk

Divorcing a bankrupt, Part II: where insolvency law meets financial remedies – Family Law Week

Posted July 3rd, 2013 in bankruptcy, divorce, financial provision, matrimonial home, news, pensions by sally

“Henry Clayton of 4 Paper Buildings outlines the consequences where a party to financial remedy proceedings becomes bankrupt after the making of a final order.”

Full story

Family Law Week, 28th June 2013

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Hunt v Conwy County Borough Council – WLR Daily

Hunt v Conwy County Borough Council [2013] EWHC 1154 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 205

“It was open to the court to entertain an application under section 320(2)(c) to vest a dwelling in its occupants notwithstanding that the applicant occupied only part of the disclaimed property as his dwelling house and it was open to the court, on such an application, to make an order relating to only a part of the disclaimed property.”

WLR Daily, 8th May 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Kerry Katona payday loan ad banned for being irresponsible – The Guardian

Posted May 8th, 2013 in advertising, bankruptcy, complaints, loans, news by sally

“A TV campaign fronted by former bankrupt Kerry Katona offering payday loans with the strapline ‘fast cash for fast lives’ has been banned for being irresponsible.”

Full story

The Guardian, 8th May 2013

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Dowland v Architects Registration Board – WLR Daily

Posted April 26th, 2013 in bankruptcy, disqualification, law reports, professional conduct by tracey

Dowland v Architects Registration Board: [2013] EWHC 893 (Admin);   [2013] WLR (D)  148

“The Architects Registration Board was not limited to questions of competence when considering whether to reinstate a person to the Register of Architects.”

WLR Daily, 19th April 29013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Court orders stockbroker who defrauded £32m to pay nominal £1 fee – The Independent

Posted March 25th, 2013 in assets recovery, bankruptcy, fraud, news by sally

“A bankrupt stockbroker who defrauded millions of pounds from some of Britain’s shrewdest business people was today ordered to pay a nominal £1 fee.”

Full story

The Independent, 25th March 2013

Source: www.independent.co.uk

Davis and another v Price and another – WLR Daily

Davis and another v Price and another [2013] EWHC 323 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 78

“Statutory demands served in respect of the liability for a debt created by an order for costs were subject to the terms of individual voluntary arrangements (‘IVAs’) proposed by the debtors and approved by creditors and therefore they should be set aside.”

WLR Daily, 21st February 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

COMI, bankruptcy tourism and forum shopping – 11 Stone Buildings

Posted February 7th, 2013 in bankruptcy, choice of forum, insolvency, jurisdiction, news by sally

“The UK Bankruptcy Courts have become the destination of choice for foreign debtors leading to ‘bankruptcy tourism’ and forum shopping. Why is this the case and is it ever safe to travel? Marcia Shekerdemian sets the scene, examines this phenomenon and puts a few cases under the insolvency microscope.”

Full story (PDF)

11 Stone Buildings, February 2013

Source: www.11sb.com

Appleyard v Wewelwala – WLR Daily

Posted November 27th, 2012 in bankruptcy, jurisdiction, law reports, remuneration, trustees in bankruptcy by sally

Appleyard v Wewelwala [2012] EWHC 3302 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 345

“The court’s inherent jurisdiction to direct payment of the trustee in bankruptcy’s expenses extended to cases where the bankruptcy order was set aside on appeal. A trustee who had acted properly and innocently of any wrongdoing could expect to obtain payment of his reasonable expenses”

WLR Daily, 23rd November 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

McRoberts v McRoberts – WLR Daily

Posted November 7th, 2012 in bankruptcy, divorce, family courts, insolvency, law reports by sally

McRoberts v McRoberts [2012] EWHC 2966 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 305

“If review or modification of an obligation imposed in matrimonial proceedings was not within the jurisdiction of the matrimonial courts under the Matrimonial Causes Acts, then s 281(5) of the Insolvency Act 1986 should not be deployed to supply some additional basis of review. When exercising its discretion under s 281(5) to release a bankrupt from bankruptcy debt, the question the court had to ask was whether, accepting that the obligation’s imposition was justified, there was any real prospect of it being satisfied now or in the future and whether its release was necessary to enable or at least substantially assist the discharged bankrupt to re-establish himself.”

WLR Daily, 1st November 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk