header-logo header-logo

23 January 2026
Issue: 8146 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 23 January 2026

Bankruptcy

Reid-Roberts and another v Lin and another [2026] EWHC 49 (Ch)

The Chancery Division considered an appeal by trustees in bankruptcy and cross-appeal by the respondents against a decision concerning the property interests of joint trustees in bankruptcy and the bankrupt's ex-wife. The appellants (‘the trustees’) are the joint trustees in bankruptcy of the second respondent, Audun Mar Gudmundsson (‘Mr Gudmundsson’). The first respondent, Hsiao Mei-Lin (‘Ms Lin’), was formerly married to Mr Gudmundsson, and owned together with him the property known as 9 Southcote Road, London N19 5BJ (‘the property’). The court dismissed Ms Lin's cross-appeal, which claimed that Mr Gudmundsson had transferred his beneficial interest in their jointly-owned property to her via WhatsApp and email exchanges before his bankruptcy. The court found these communications did not evince a clear intention to divest his interest immediately, and even if they had, the WhatsApp messages would not have satisfied the writing requirements under s 53(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925. The court partly allowed the trustees' appeal against

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—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll