Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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