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: Re Haghighat (A Bankrupt); Britain (Trustee of the Estate in Bankrupt v Haghighat) [2009]

Sep 29, 2018, 16:11 PM
Slug : re-haghighat-a-bankrupt-britain-trustee-of-the-estate-in-bankrupt-v-haghighat-2009
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 12, 2009, 04:21 AM
Article ID : 84839

(Chancery Division; George Bompas QC (sitting as a deputy High Court judge); 12 January 2009)

The only asset in the husband's bankruptcy was the matrimonial home. The trustee in bankruptcy sought a possession order against the husband, the wife, and the three children. The eldest child was seriously disabled; he had congenital quadriplegic cerebral palsy with learning disability and epilepsy and was in need of continuous care. The family argued that the circumstances of the case were exceptional within Insolvency Act 1986, ss 336(5) and 337(4), and that an order for possession should be refused. The trustee argued that the possession order should be made, and should be deferred only for a period of 3 or 6 months, as the local authority would be obliged to house the family once it was homeless. It was accepted by all parties that if the property were sold there would still be a substantial shortfall in the bankruptcy.

These were exceptional circumstances within Insolvency Act 1986, ss 336(5) and 337(4). The possession order should be made, but deferred for 3 years, or, if sooner, 3 months after the disabled child ceased to reside permanently at the property. This would allow an orderly change to the care arrangements for the child.

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