• 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.

  •

    Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC [2024] EWHC 521 (Ch)

    A judgment obtained for two billion Rubles in a Russian court was not eligible for registration under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, and no separate proceedings were taken in the English courts seeking an English judgment. Could the judgment still be a debt which satisfied the grounds of a bankruptcy petition in an English court under s.267 Insolvency Act 1986? Play In this important case, the court rejected a debtor's challenge to a bankruptcy petition which had been presented against him, on the grounds that the debt was disputed. The debt upon which the petition was founded was a foreign judgment granted by the Arbitrazh Court of Yaroslavl in Russia. The debtor had been unsuccessful in all of his appeals against the debt in Russia. The petitioning creditor then issued a bankruptcy petition against the debtor who was by then residing in England, but did so without first seeking recognition of the judgment under Part 7 CPR. However, the High Court rejected the submission that it was necessary to first seek recognition of a foreign judgment under Part 7 before issuing a bankruptcy petition which was founded upon it. The High Court also rejected the submission that the court should not make a bankruptcy order on the grounds of public policy, specifically because it was alleged that a bankruptcy order would be to the exclusive benefit of the Russian state. This was because Gazprom Neft, being the biggest creditor of the petitioning creditor (which was in liquidation), had funded the bankruptcy proceedings and was ultimately owned by the Russian state.

  •

    Bramston (Appellant) v Haut (Respondent) [2012] EWCA Civ 1637

    A very unusual case, in which the Court of Appeal overturns a High Court decision which allowed a bankrupt to apply to suspend his own bankruptcy. Play The bankrupt wished to apply to suspend his own discharge from bankruptcy urgently, as the anniversary of his Bankruptcy Order was only days away. He wanted to propose an IVA whilst he was still undischarged, which would enable him to seek an annulment of his bankruptcy from the court under s.261 Insolvency Act 1986. The Court of Appeal considered whether the High Court was correct in its finding that a bankrupt had standing to apply for the suspension of his own discharge from bankruptcy. It held that only a trustee in bankruptcy or an official receiver can apply, save in exceptional circumstances, and that this case was not exceptional. A Trustee in Bankruptcy has no duty to comply with a bankrupt's request to co-operate when proposing an IVA. However, a bankrupt may ask the court to apply its discretion for an order directing the trustee to make an application (s.303(1) IA86), and here the Court of Appeal held that the High Court should have directed the trustee to apply to suspend the bankrupt's discharge from bankruptcy before it made an order suspending his discharge from bankruptcy.