Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
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...
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