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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

BANKRUPTCY/ANCILLARY RELIEF: Hill v Haines [2007] EWHC 1012 (Ch)

Sep 29, 2018, 16:12 PM
Slug : hill-v-haines-2007-ewhc-1012-ch
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 3, 2007, 04:21 AM
Article ID : 84909

(Chancery Division; Judge Pelling QC sitting as a High Court judge; 3 May 2007)

In ancillary relief proceedings, the husband was ordered to transfer his interest in the matrimonial property to the wife and to make nominal periodical payments; the wife's lump sum application was adjourned. It had been made clear to the ancillary relief judge that the husband was hopelessly insolvent and that there was a risk that he would be made the subject of a bankruptcy order. In the event the husband was made bankrupt on his own petition. The trustees in bankruptcy applied to have the property transfer set aside on the basis that it was a transaction at an undervalue. At first instance the district judge accepted that the wife had given consideration for the transfer, relying on Re Abbott [1983] Ch 45 and Re Kumar [1993] 1 WLR 224.

Allowing the appeal of the trustees, an applicant for ancillary relief did not give consideration in money or money's worth for relief obtained. The position was the same whether the matrimonial court made an order following a contested hearing or following a compromise agreement: in neither case did the receiving party give, nor the paying party receive, consideration. Since an agreement to compromise an ancillary relief claim could not give rise to binding contractual obligations, and an applicant for such relief had no cause of action, an applicant could not give consideration by simply compromising claims by a settlement agreement that was, by definition, not binding.

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