header-logo header-logo

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

Bankrupting out of ancillary relief

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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll