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: 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