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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll