S271 Insolvency Act 1986 provides that a bankruptcy petition may be dismissed if the court is satisfied that a debtor can pay his debt, or has made an offer to secure or compound the debt, the acceptance of which offer would lead to the petition being dismissed and that the offer has been unreasonably refused. But what is a reasonable refusal?

The Insolvency Service (IS) has published a consultation paper on reforming debtor petition bankruptcy and early discharge from bankruptcy. The proposed reforms, which are aimed at speeding up the procedure and lowering costs, are to:

Where "prejudice" is suffered by a creditor or contributory, the court can order a compulsory liquidation despite a voluntary liquidation having already been entered into.

Where the Courts Service failed to notify the Land Registry of a bankruptcy petition with the effect that property was disposed of without a pending action having been registered, the trustee in bankruptcy had a right to claim damages.

The making of a bankruptcy order alone will not deprive a judgment creditor of a final charging order where it is obtained before the bankruptcy order is made.

To avoid an asset reverting to a bankrupt after the end of his period of bankruptcy, the asset must be realised. An assignment of a beneficial interest for a future price does not amount to a realisation.

The courts have the power to and increasingly will make a civil restraint order where an individual persistently issues claims that are totally without merit.

For debtors with limited liabilities, little surplus income and minimal gross assets, the new Debt Relief Order (DRO) is a further tool to consider in managing their debts. DROs, which came into force on 6 April 2009, are aimed at those who find they are unable to pay off their debts within a reasonable time but for whom other forms of debt relief, such as bankruptcy or Individual Voluntary Arrangements, are unavailable, or perhaps unaffordable.

What are the criteria for a DRO?

A DRO can be applied for where the debtor:

Where a debtor's assets exceed his liabilities, the onus is on the debtor to prove he can not pay his debts if a creditor seeks to annul the bankruptcy order.

In Paulin v Paulin and another, the defendant petitioned for his own bankruptcy claiming he was unable to pay his debts. The claimant applied for the order to be annulled claiming the defendant could afford to pay his debts and was deliberately attempting to defeat her claims in the matrimonial proceedings.

Where the entirety of a debt is not included in an agreement to settle, a creditor can continue to prove in a bankruptcy for the balance.