Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
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