Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
Lockdown 2: how does it affect child contact?
No sooner had clarity been obtained as to how child contact would work within and across the tier system, than the government announced its suspension in England.  From 5 November 2020, a 4-week...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
View all articles
Authors

Ball v Jones: The Final Word on Hill v Haines?

Sep 29, 2018, 17:06 PM
Slug : ball-v-jones-the-final-word-on-hill-v-haines
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 6, 2009, 10:49 AM
Article ID : 85839

Gareth Schofield, Partner, Clarke Willmott

This article considers the case Re Jones (A bankrupt); Ball v Jones [2008] 2 FLR 1969 (Ball v Jones) and its importance to family lawyers in clarifying the principles set out in Haines v Hill and Another [2007] EWCA Civ 1284, [2008] 1 FLR 1192 in the Court of Appeal. It highlights the fact that the practitioner must consider carefully and advise their clients effectively as to how the possibility of bankruptcy will affect their client's possible claims, and settlement, and must be prepared to respond swiftly as circumstances change.

The case Burke v Chubb [2008] EWHC 341 (QB), [2008] 2 FLR 1207 is a salutary reminder of the possibility of negligence if that advice is not given, particularly when the other spouse is prepared to co-operate and proactive steps taken to follow it. That advice needs to include consideration of whether it is possible to preserve assets for the family rather than the bankrupt's creditors in a situation where the bankruptcy has not yet occurred. The non-bankrupt client will also want to know if they are protected from a later claim by a trustee in bankruptcy if they are the beneficiary of a property adjustment order and the potentially bankrupt client will want to know if there is any benefit to transferring a property to their former spouse to avoid their creditors.

In most cases where solvency is an issue, the only asset of significance owned by the parties will be a property, generally owned in the parties' joint names as joint tenants. This article focuses on that particular circumstance and in particular whether a property adjustment order will be effective against a subsequent claim by the trustee in bankruptcy. A future article will look at the overall effect of insolvency on ancillary relief claims, including lump sums, and pensions.

To read the rest of this article, see October [2009] Family Law journal.

To log on to Family Law Online or to request a free trial click here.

Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from