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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll