header-logo header-logo

Bankrupting out of ancillary relief

20 April 2008
Issue: 7269 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

During ancillary relief proceedings, the respondent procures a bankruptcy order...

During ancillary relief proceedings, the respondent procures a bankruptcy order on his own petition as a ruse, does the applicant have the ability to apply for an annulment? If not, is there any other action she can take?

The answer is a resounding ‘yes’. The Insolvency Act 1986 section 282(1)(a)  provides that the court may annul a bankruptcy order ‘if it at any time appears to the court that, on grounds existing at the time the order was made, the order ought not to have been made’. The jurisdiction is wide and is expressed in the passive voice, so there is no restriction at all on who may apply. A disgruntled spouse could definitely apply.

There are three reported cases in which the jurisdiction has been exercised. In Woodley v Woodley [1994] 1 WLR 1167 CA the court said that an order procured to defeat a matrimonial claim could be annulled. In F v F [1994] 1 FLR 359 Mr Justice Thorpe (as he then was) did annul. Mr Justice Wilson (as he then was) did the same in Couvaras v Wolf [2002] 2 FLR 107 where the bankruptcy was a sham.

In a county court a district judge could deal with the petition in the matrimonial proceedings which would be an advantage.

The Bankruptcy Court will often transfer the petition to the family judge where this kind of situation arises so that there are not two courts looking at the same thing from two different
angles.

.

Issue: 7269 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll