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.

In April 2008 the Bankruptcy & Diligence (Scotland) Act 2007 ("the Act") introduced a new regime for obtaining permission for (and recalling) diligence on the dependence of a court action (i.e. arrestment and inhibition). In terms of the Act, before granting (or recalling) warrant for diligence, the court must be satisfied that:

This recent case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) is one of the first to examine how the insolvency provisions in the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) should apply and, in particular, the circumstances in which employment liabilities passed under TUPE to the buyer of the assets of an insolvent company.

Facts

This case involved a "pre-pack" administration.

The absence of an intention to put assets out of the reach of creditors will thwart applications under the Insolvency Act to set declarations of trust or transfers aside.

An intervening bankruptcy will not defeat a charging order where the bankruptcy was entered into in an attempt to frustrate the charge.

The US Court has approved a bankruptcy settlement under which a US-listed parent company is liable for the buy-out deficits in its UK subsidiary's pension schemes. Key to the court's considerations was the issue of Financial Support Directions (FSDs) by the UK Pensions Regulator against the US parent company.

The court decided that:

With the economy in poor shape and personal debt still at high levels, the outlook is less than rosy for people who are facing insolvency. Even after the changes made by the Enterprise Act 2002, bankruptcy is still a difficult experience. This is especially true where the family home is the main asset of the bankrupt’s estate.

The trustee in bankruptcy will normally seek a possession order over the property so that it can be sold to satisfy the claims of creditors.

When deciding whether the possession order is to be granted, the court is obliged to consider:

In Oakland v Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd, the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) decided that an employee of a business in administration was unable to have the protection afforded to employees under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) when the business in which he was employed was transferred and continued as a going concern with the transferee.

The FSMT has handed down its decision in the case of Asgar Ali Ravjani (trading as Astrad Finance) v Financial Services Authority, which involved the failure to disclose a discharged bankruptcy to the FSA.