• Servis-Terminal LLC v Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62

    A foreign judgment cannot be used as the basis for a bankruptcy petition in England and Wales unless it has already been recognised by an English court. This has overturned the High Court's decision, which had reached the opposite conclusion. Play This case concerns an appeal of the case of Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC [2024], which has previously been covered in Caseplayers. Here, the Court of Appeal clarifies a substantial aspect of cross=border enforcement in insolvency proceedings. Now, following this judgment, before a creditor under a foreign judgment can petition for bankruptcy against a debtor in this jurisdiction, the creditor must either register the judgment under one of the statutory schemes giving effect to bilateral enforcement treaties between the UK and other foreign states; or, in cases where these schemes do not apply (including in Russia, the USA and China), they must bring an action on the judgment at common law. The decision appears to indicate that the same will also be true where a creditor wants to serve a statutory demand in respect of the judgment debt. It will not, however, prevent a creditor from petitioning for bankruptcy on the basis of a foreign debt, if the debt is for a liquidated sum, it exists independently and it is not disputed on substantial grounds, as long as it is not the subject of a foreign judgment. Unfortunately, the decision will end up meaning that creditors will have to spend more time and expense if they wish to enforce a foreign judgment in England against an individual.

  •

    Nilsson and Thomas (as joint trustees in bankruptcy of Stuart Cynberg) v Collette Cynberg [2024] EWHC 2164 (Ch)

    Where purchasers make an express declaration of trust, that declaration will be conclusive "unless varied by subsequent agreement" or affected by proprietary estoppel. Play In the benchmark case of Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, Baroness Hale famously said that an express declaration of trust is conclusive unless varied by "subsequent agreement" or affected by proprietary estoppel. But what did she mean by "subsequent agreement"? Were such agreements intended to be confined to a subsequent express declaration of trust (another written trust deed), or did she mean to include a wider range of agreements, for example, informal, verbal agreements? The decision in the present case provided important clarity on the interpretation of "subsequent agreement" in the context of express declarations of trust. The case considered whether such agreements must comply with the formalities of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (LP(MP)A 1989) or if they can include informal, verbal agreements capable of establishing a common intention constructive trust. That is, this case considered whether "subsequent agreements" were limited to those compliant with the LP(MP)A 1989, or whether they could also include informally arising constructive trusts.

  •

    Hyde and Anor v Djurberg and Ors [2024] EWHC 1188 (Ch)

    Assets of a bankrupt which have been acquired by a third party may still be after-acquired property. If such assets were beneficially owned by the bankrupt, they would in such case have become vested in the trustee in bankruptcy. Play Not only do a trustee in bankruptcy's investigatory role and powers relate to assets which were acquired before the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings; but, in fact, the bankrupt's affairs after the Trustee is appointed may show that certain property was acquired after the date of commencement but before discharge, and therefore may constitute 'after-acquired property'. It may, in fact, be possible in some cases for a trustee in bankruptcy to urgently seek and obtain a freezing injunction against such a third party, if after-acquired property is discovered. If successful, this would have had the effect of preventing irrecoverable loss to the bankruptcy estate, as long as the relevant notice under section 307 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has been served upon the bankrupt within 42 days of the date when the fact that certain after-acquired property had been acquired by, or devolved upon, the bankrupt had first come to the Trustee's knowledge. Service of such a notice would validate the trustee in bankruptcy's claim to the after-acquired property.

  •

    Boris Franz Becker v Ford & Ors [2024] EWHC 1001 (Ch)

    This case is an unfortunate reminder of the fate in bankruptcy of an extremely well-known professional tennis player; yet he, as a bankrupt, was ultimately able to convince the court that his compliance with his Trustees in Bankruptcy was consistent with the obligations imposed by the Insolvency Act 1986, and sufficient for his suspension to be lifted. Play In this case, just as the court had to be satisfied that there had been non-compliance by a bankrupt to suspend the bankrupt's automatic discharge, the court also had to be satisfied that the bankrupt had co-operated with the Official Receiver or his Trustee in Bankruptcy to obtain a finding that there had been co-operation which was consistent with his Insolvency Act 1986 obligations. It was noted that the legislation did not impose a requirement that discharge was conditional upon full compliance. Rather, it was enough if Mr Becker could demonstrate that he had done all that he could reasonably do in the circumstances in fulfilling any outstanding obligations which had been previously identified.