Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
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