header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
29 February 2008
Issue: 7310 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

INSOLVENCY

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Halabi v Camden London Borough Council [2008] All ER (D) 213 (Feb)

The issue to be determined was whether “paid”, under s 282(1)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986, includes the provision of security for a debt.

HELD The wording of s 282 makes it clear that, in order for the court to exercise its discretion to order annulment, the bankruptcy debts and expenses must have been paid; the qualification “to the satisfaction of the court” governs the giving of security. If the court makes an order for annulment, it has the power to specify that the order should not take effect until a later date.

However, it is an order in the meantime; its operation being suspended until the conditions specified by the court have been satisfied. The conditions which will normally be required to be satisfied are that the receiver must have notified the court that debts in the sum specified in the bankruptcy order have been paid, and that there is security in relation to any other unproven sums.

 
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll