header-logo header-logo

13 June 2014 / Robert Jordan
Issue: 7610 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

In suspense

web_pp_bankruptcy_jordan

Robert Jordan considers applications to suspend discharge of a bankruptcy order

Over the last five years the number of applications to suspend automatic discharge has reduced from 1,970 in 2008/9 to 1,218 in 2012/3. The suspension of automatic discharge is penal to ensure cooperation during the investigation phase.

IA 1986

An application to suspend the discharge of a bankruptcy order is made under s 279 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). This prevents the automatic discharge and the end of one year “beginning with the date on which the bankruptcy commences”. Any application must be commenced before the automatic discharge as the application is to suspend that discharge.

The application can be made by either the official receiver or trustee (s 279(3)) and the court may order that the automatic discharge shall cease to run until: “(a) the end of a specified period, or (b) the fulfillment of a specified condition.”

The court may make an order (s 279(4)) only “if satisfied that the bankrupt has failed or is failing to comply with

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll