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: 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