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

BANKRUPTCY: Williams v Bateman [2009] EWHC 1760 (Ch)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:06 PM
Slug : williams-v-bateman-2009-ewhc-1760-ch
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 4, 2009, 06:06 AM
Article ID : 85895

(Chancery Division; David Richards J; 22 July 2009)

The husband and the wife held the matrimonial home as joint tenants. When the parties were divorced the joint tenancy was severed by notice. In the same year a bankruptcy order was made against the husband. About 15 years later, following a rise in the value of the matrimonial home, the trustee in bankruptcy applied for a declaration in respect of the interests in the property, and for an order for sale. The judge made a declaration that the trustee had a 50% beneficial interest, with an order for sale. The judge made certain deductions in the wife's favour, including £37,245.50 by way of equity of exoneration and £11,250 representing the value of improvement works to the property. The wife appealed, arguing that the equity of exoneration figure should have been treated as a set-off against the trustee's interest in property, under Insolvency Act 1986, s 323(1).

The appeal was dismissed. It was fundamental to the operation of set-off under s 323 of the 1986 Act that there be liabilities each way between the bankrupt and the other person as at the date of bankruptcy. While there had been a contingent liability of the bankrupt husband to the wife as at the date of bankruptcy, there had been no liability due from her to the bankrupt husband. Therefore, applying s 323, the notion of setting-off the contingent liability to her against the husband's beneficial interest in the property had no place.

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