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

BANKRUPTCY: Gotham v Doodes [2006] EWCA Civ 1080

Sep 29, 2018, 17:19 PM
Slug : gotham-v-doodes-2006-ewca-civ-1080
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 25, 2006, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 89143

(Court of Appeal; Sir Andrew Morritt C, Carnwath and Moses LJJ; 25 July 2006) [2006] 2 FLR (forthcoming)

The trustee's 2005 application to enforce a 1992 charge upon the bankrupt's property, by orders for possession and sale, was not barred by s 20(1) of the Limitation Act 1980. If a charge imposed by an order made under s 313 of the Insolvency Act 1986 secured a future obligation then, until the obligation was a present one, no right to receive the principal sum secured accrued. Hornsey Local Board v Monarch Investment Building Society (1889) 24 QBD 1 established that a right to receive the sum secured was not the same as a right to enforce the security. It was true that if the bankrupt had wished to redeem the charge he would have had to pay the relevant sums to the trustee in bankruptcy or into court, but that did not mean that the trustee in bankruptcy had a present right to receive those sums. There was no inconsistency in having a right to enforce a charge by sale at a time when there was only a deferred right to receive the proceeds. A right to enforce the security could precede or follow the right to receive the sums secured. In the case of charges imposed by orders made under s 313 of the Insolvency Act 1986 the right to receive could not predate an order for the sale of the property. It followed that time had not started to run under s 20(1) of the Limitation Act 1980.

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