header-logo header-logo

Bankrupting out of ancillary relief

20 April 2008
Issue: 7269 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

During ancillary relief proceedings, the respondent procures a bankruptcy order...

During ancillary relief proceedings, the respondent procures a bankruptcy order on his own petition as a ruse, does the applicant have the ability to apply for an annulment? If not, is there any other action she can take?

The answer is a resounding ‘yes’. The Insolvency Act 1986 section 282(1)(a)  provides that the court may annul a bankruptcy order ‘if it at any time appears to the court that, on grounds existing at the time the order was made, the order ought not to have been made’. The jurisdiction is wide and is expressed in the passive voice, so there is no restriction at all on who may apply. A disgruntled spouse could definitely apply.

There are three reported cases in which the jurisdiction has been exercised. In Woodley v Woodley [1994] 1 WLR 1167 CA the court said that an order procured to defeat a matrimonial claim could be annulled. In F v F [1994] 1 FLR 359 Mr Justice Thorpe (as he then was) did annul. Mr Justice Wilson (as he then was) did the same in Couvaras v Wolf [2002] 2 FLR 107 where the bankruptcy was a sham.

In a county court a district judge could deal with the petition in the matrimonial proceedings which would be an advantage.

The Bankruptcy Court will often transfer the petition to the family judge where this kind of situation arises so that there are not two courts looking at the same thing from two different
angles.

.

Issue: 7269 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll