Family Law Hub

Insolvency Act 1986

Statute, published: 31/12/1986

Items referring to this

  • The husband was claiming legal professional privilege such that his solicitor, who had arranged the insurance for a £90 million Modern Art Collection which was ordered to be transferred to the wife, could not be questioned about this matter or about the assets held in a limited company in financial remedy proceedings. The court ruled that there was iniquity such as to justify the lifting of legal professional privilege in this case. Judgment, 12/05/2017, free
  • The court ruled that all dispositions of a £90 million Modern Art Collection and the financial assets of a limited company to two financial organisations should be set aside because they formed part of the latest scheme by the husband to hide his assets. This meant that at all material times those assets vested in the husband and continue to do so and therefore remain immediately available for the enforcement of the financial remedy order in favour of the wife. Judgment, 12/05/2017, free
  • Judgment in financial remedy proceedings in very high net worth case involving offshore trusts and international enforcement. The wife was awarded £453m, which represented 41.5% of the assets. Judgment, 11/05/2017, free
  • Judgment, 13/03/2013, free
  • Judgment, 22/03/2013, free
  • Judgment, 18/07/2012, free
  • W was seeking to set aside a transaction, where H had transferred £1.75M to his son before their divorce, so as to bring the sum back into the estate. She wished to have the s423 Insolvency Act 1986 route available to her as well as the statutory route under s10 of the Inheritance Provision for Family and Dependants Act 1975. The judge declined to dismiss her s423 application and the question of costs was adjourned. Judgment, 09/01/2014, free
  • Consideration of equitable accounting where the trustee in bankruptcy was enforcing an estranged husband's share of a house he had never lived in but where his estranged wife lived with the couple's children. The house had been re-mortgaged in joint names for financial reasons after estrangement (previously it had been in the wife's sole name) but the husband had not contributed to any mortgage repayments. Judgment, 07/04/2017, free
  • Appeal against an order which: (1) gave the wife an equitable interest in two properties and that this interest was not affected by the husband's bankruptcy and was not waived or otherwise lost during the bankruptcy; (2) the wife's interest remains enforceable against the husband and the Second Appellant; (3) alternatively, that a Declaration of Trust by which the husband and the Second Appellant declared, among other things, that the husband held the properties for the benefit of the Second Appellant alone, should be set aside under section 37 of the MCA 1973. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 16/03/2017, free
  • Application by Trustee in Bankruptcy against an order that the property, which was the only asset of any value in the bankruptcy, should not be sold until the 30 year old vulnerable child of the bankrupt, who resided at the property, no longer lived there. The application was allowed and an order that the longest period of postponement of 12 months was made. Judgment, 19/07/2016, free
  • Schedule 1 Children Act case where the father was only paying £7 per week despite having assets of several million pounds. Mostyn J awarded the mother £20,600 after she applied for a further capital provision for their son. Judgment, 11/05/2017, free
  • Appeal by ex-wife against dismissal of application to set aside statutory demand in respect of various debts pursuant to a number of court orders in proceedings between her and her former husband. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 20/11/2017, free
  • Appeal by the Trustee in Bankruptcy against the dismissal of his application for an income payments order pursuant to section 310 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in respect of income which might become payable to the respondent from his personal pension policies, were he to exercise his contractual rights under those policies to draw down a lump sum or other payments. The question before the court was: "Does a pension entitlement in respect of which a bankrupt has a present right to elect to draw down payment (but which he has not yet exercised) fall to be included in the assessment of his income: 'to which he from time to time becomes entitled' within the meaning of section 310(7) of the Insolvency Act when the court is considering whether and, if so, on what terms, to make an IPO under section 310?" The court dismissed the appeal. Judgment, 17/10/2016, free
  • High value financial provision case where the wife sought orders which would enable her to receive all the properties in this jurisdiction together with a lump sum equivalent to half the value of the Russian properties whose sole beneficial owner was the H. The total assets, or at least those that could be ascertained against the non-disclosure of the H, were worth over £107m and all the properties, apart from the FMH, were held within various company structures and worth in excess of £14m. The judge held that all the UK properties were held on resulting and constructive trusts for the H and the W was awarded over £53m. Child maintenance orders of £20,000 pa per child were also made. Judgment, 15/08/2013, free
  • Judgment, 28/10/2012, free
  • Nicola Rowlings, PSL at Mills & Reeve, summarises the main points on day 2 of the Supreme Court hearing. News, 11/03/2013, free
  • Appeal by the trustee in bankruptcy against an order that the sale of the matrimonial home be delayed until the death or earlier permanent vacation of the property by the husband. The appeal was allowed and order for sale was made for 12 months time with permission for the husband to apply for a further postponement. Judgment, 18/10/2017, free
  • Trustee in bankruptcy was seeking to renew his application for permission to appeal against an order striking out his claim for a lump sum or a property adjustment order under ss.23 and 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Cross-appeal to set aside an order in so far as it gave the Trustee permission to appeal against the decision striking out his claim that the payments were transactions at an undervalue pursuant to s.339 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Judgment, 28/11/2016, free
  • A client’s claim against a solicitor for breach of contract and professional negligence (for failure to advise correctly on property rights in light of the husband’s bankruptcy) was time barred where the claim had been issued over 11 years after the claimant had withdrawn her instructions. Judgment, 14/05/2014, free
  • The husband's trustee in bankruptcy claimed that 2 charges against the FMH were a sham and that a Trust Deed and Consent Order should be set aside as constituting a transaction defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 or a transaction at an undervalue for the purposes of section 339 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Judgment, 22/03/2016, free
  • Judgment, 14/11/2012, free
  • Judgment, 08/11/2012, free
  • Judgment in long running financial remedy proceedings where the husband claimed he was now penniless. The judge found that his assets were £40m and awarded the wife half of that sum as that amount also matched her reasonable needs. Judgment, 22/11/2013, free

Published: 31/12/1986

Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item