• Khan v Singh-Sall and anor [2023] EWCA Civ 1119

    Where the court finds that a bankruptcy order should not have been made, an order of annulment is not inevitable Play This case was a second appeal, in which the Court of Appeal upheld the decisions of two lower courts. In exercising its discretion, it concluded that as a result of the bankrupt's conduct and his insolvency,  his bankruptcy should not be annulled, despite having reached the conclusion that the bankruptcy order should not have been made. This case shows that where the court finds that a bankruptcy order should not have been made, an order of annulment is not inevitable, and nor is it even the case that an annulment should only be refused in "exceptional circumstances".

  •

    Brake and anor (Respondents) v The Chedington Court Estate Ltd (Appellant) [2023] UKSC 29

    In a case where there is a dissatisfied bankrupt, the Supreme Court has limited the circumstances in which such a person will have standing to challenge a Trustee in Bankruptcy's decisions and actions under s.303(1) Insolvency Act 1986 to those in which there is, or is likely to be, a surplus in the bankruptcy estate (subject to some limited exceptions). Play This decision assists Insolvency Practitioners' professional judgment - bankrupts and creditors are unable to interfere in it. Insolvency Practitioners will be aided where they wish to bring an unmeritorious claim to a close as soon as possible, and help keep the costs to the bankruptcy estate down, in cases where a bankrupt is unable to show he or she has standing. The Supreme Court noted that although this decision is to do with bankruptcy, the same reasoning will apply to challenges to liquidators' decisions under s.168(5) of the 1986 Act.