Archive for the 'trustees in bankruptcy' Category
Stonham v Ramrattan and another – WLR Daily
Published February 18, 2011 law reports , limitations , matrimonial home , sham transactions , trustees in bankruptcy Leave a CommentLewis and another v Metropolitan Property Realisations Ltd – WLR Daily
Published June 18, 2009 assignment , bankruptcy , law reports , matrimonial home , trustees in bankruptcy Leave a CommentLewis and another v Metropolitan Property Realisations Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 448; [2009] WLR (D) 189
“The word ‘realise’ in the context of s 283A(3)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986 was not, in its context, capable of covering a transaction where there was deferred monetary consideration during the period before that consideration came in, so that a bankrupt’s interest in property that had formerly vested jointly in him and his wife revested in him on the third anniversary of his bankruptcy despite his trustee in bankruptcy having assigned that interest to a creditor by way of an agreement for consideration of £1 and 25% of any eventual sale of the interest.”
WLR Daily, 17th June 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Everitt v Budhram (a bankrupt) and another – WLR Daily
Published May 26, 2009 bankruptcy , law reports , matrimonial home , trustees in bankruptcy Leave a CommentEveritt v Budhram (a bankrupt) and another [2009] WLR (D) 167
“The ‘needs’ of a bankrupt within s 335A(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 should be given a wide interpretation and could include his financial, medical, emotional and mental needs.”
WLR Daily, 21st May 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Lewis and Another v Metropolitan Property Realizations Ltd – Times Law Reports
Published December 9, 2008 law reports , trustees in bankruptcy 1 CommentLewis and Another v Metropolitan Property Realizations Ltd
Chancery Division
“A trustee in bankruptcy who sold the estate’s interest for deferred contingent consideration ‘realised’ the interest within the meaning of section 283A(3)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986.”
The Times, 9th December 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
In re Hemming, decd; Raymond Saul & Co (a firm) v Holden and another – WLR Daily
Published November 14, 2008 executors , law reports , trustees in bankruptcy , wills Leave a Comment“Where a sole residuary legatee under a will became bankrupt but was automatically discharged from bankruptcy before the completion of the administration of the estate of the testator, the money and assets which were thereafter ascertained to form the net residuary estate were payable to his trustee in bankruptcy.”
WLR Daily, 13th November 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Donaldson v O’Sullivan (Official Receiver intervening) – Times Law Reports
Published October 6, 2008 law reports , trustees in bankruptcy Leave a CommentDonaldson v O’Sullivan (Official Receiver intervening)
Court of Appeal
“The court had power under the Insolvency Act 1986 to appoint a replacement trustee in bankruptcy following the removal of a person from that office under section 298 of that Act, without a creditors’ meeting.”
The Times, 6th October 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21days from the date of publication.
Donaldson v O’Sullivan (Official Receiver intervening) – WLR Daily
Published August 4, 2008 law reports , trustees in bankruptcy Leave a CommentDonaldson v O’Sullivan (Official Receiver intervening) [2008] EWCA Civ 879; [2008] WLR (D) 275
“The court had power under the Insolvency Act 1986 to appoint a replacement trustee in bankruptcy following the removal of a person from such an office under s 298 of that Act, and it was not a requirement that a creditors’ meeting should make such an appointment.”
WLR Daily, 1st August 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.