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...
Latest articles
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...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
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...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
View all articles

BANKRUPTCY/PROPERTY: Segal v Pasram & another

Sep 29, 2018, 17:20 PM
Slug : segal-v-pasram-and-another
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 18, 2007, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 89383

(Chancery Division; Robin Knowles QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court; 7 June 2007)

In anticipation of intended divorce proceedings the husband had transferred his entire interest in the jointly-owned property (worth over £200,000) to the wife under an agreement whereby in consideration for payment of £1,000 and an undertaking by the wife to give up all ancillary relief claims against him, he relinquished his beneficial interest in the property and it was transferred into her sole name. The husband was subsequently made bankrupt and his trustee in bankruptcy sought declarations that prior to the transfer the husband and wife held the property in equal beneficial shares, that the transfer was a transaction at an undervalue and that the husband's beneficial interest in the property should vest in the trustee in bankruptcy under s 306 Insolvency Act.

The wife's contention that contributions to the purchase price of the property meant that she owned a two third share were not supported by sufficient evidence. This was a case in which the 'probable common understanding' (Stack v Dowden [2006] 1 FLR 254) was equal shares. An agreement to give up all claims for ancillary relief in exchange for the husband's beneficial interest in his property is not 'consideration in money or money's worth': Hill v Haines [2007] EWHC 1012 (Ch). The consideration of £1,000 was significantly less than the value, in money or money's worth, than the husband's beneficial interest in the property. As such the transfer was a transaction at an undervalue under s 339 Insolvency Act 1986 and one half of the property vested in the trustee in bankruptcy.

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