header-logo header-logo

29 February 2008
Issue: 7310 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

INSOLVENCY

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

Clarke Willmott—Anita Rasaratnam

Clarke Willmott—Anita Rasaratnam

Clarke Willmott strengthens social housing development offering with senior London appointment

Trowers & Hamlins—David Meecham

Trowers & Hamlins—David Meecham

Trowers strengthens Birmingham real estate team with partner hire

Blake Morgan—Jennifer Ray & Louise Culleton

Blake Morgan—Jennifer Ray & Louise Culleton

Blake Morgan expands private client and regulatory teams with new legal directors

NEWS
A mood of cautious optimism has enveloped the criminal law sector following indications the Prime Minister may abandon planned jury reforms
Helping to source the services and providers you need
The Senior Courts Costs Office has clarified that judges conducting detailed assessment proceedings cannot order security for costs—a ruling that may leave successful parties exposed to further litigation expense
Rejecting a generous settlement can prove an expensive mistake, as two recent high-profile cases demonstrate
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) continues to show that failing to disclose regulatory issues can attract harsher consequences than the original misconduct itself
back-to-top-scroll