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

BANKRUPTCY/ANCILLARY RELIEF/NEGLIGENCE: Burke v Chapman and Chubb [2008] EWHC 341 (QB)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:10 PM
Slug : burke-v-chapman-and-chubb-2008-ewhc-341-qb
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 29, 2008, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87183

(Queens Bench Division; Plender J; 29 February 2008)

A bankruptcy order made against the husband shortly before the ancillary relief hearing prevented the making of a property adjustment order in the wifes favour. The husband died shortly afterwards. The wife claimed damages from her ancillary relief solicitors, on the basis that they had negligently failed to protect her from the effect of the husbands bankruptcy.

A competent solicitor should have foreseen a risk that the insolvency of the husband might adversely affect the wifes claim to ancillary relief and the solicitors in this case ought to have warned the wife of that risk and advised her. However, advice as to the risk would not have prevented the loss, unless there had been some specific action the wife could have taken. The wife was very far from showing that if she had been advised as to the consequence on her claim of the husbands bankruptcy she would have achieved a settlement of that claim; on the evidence, the prospects of a negotiated settlement were no more than fanciful. Only an earlier hearing of the case in the county court, culminating in an immediate or early property adjustment order would have secured the wifes interests before the intervention of the bankruptcy petition; there had been no appreciable chance of the solicitors achieving that by any efforts that they could reasonably have been expected to undertake.

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