header-logo header-logo

Law digests: 23 January 2026

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

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

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
Early determination is no longer a novelty in arbitration. In NLJ this week, Gustavo Moser, arbitration specialist lawyer at Lexis+, charts the global embrace of summary disposal powers, now embedded in the Arbitration Act 1996 and mirrored worldwide. Tribunals may swiftly dismiss claims with ‘no real prospect of succeeding’, but only if fairness is preserved
back-to-top-scroll