Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
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