In my recent article with respect to individuals applying for bankruptcy online, dated 4 April 2016, I reported that the Insolvency Service must be vigilant with respect to abuse. In particular, it is a debtor’s duty is to provide the Official Receiver or Trustee with details of all known assets. Failing to do this is an offence, under Section 354(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).

Landlords typically have a number of obligations to fulfil, such as maintaining, repairing and providing insurance for the property the tenants inhabit. If the landlord is a company at risk of insolvency, however, or an individual nearing bankruptcy, then it is not safe for leaseholders to assume that these obligations will be met or that the freehold interest will necessarily pass to them. Leaseholders need to be aware of what they must do in such a situation in order to acquire the freehold interest from the landlord.

From 6 April 2016, debtors in England and Wales who wish to enter bankruptcy will need to apply online and will no longer be able to petition the Court. The final form statutory instruments to introduce the necessary changes were published on 22 February 2016.

The Court of Appeal has recently considered whether an LPA Receiver owes a duty of care to a bankrupt mortgagor in connection with the way the Receiver deals with the mortgaged property. In a decision which will be welcomed by Receivers and their insurers, the court decided that a Receiver owes no such duties.

The facts

Key Points

• Receivers only owe a duty of care to those parties who hold an interest in the equity of redemption.
• Upon the making of a bankruptcy order, the bankrupt ceases to participate in any such interest and the equity of redemption vests in the trustee in bankruptcy.

The Facts

The recent case of Oraki v Bramston and Defty [2015] EWHC 2046 (Ch) concerned former bankrupts' claims of professional negligence against their former trustees in bankruptcy (“the Trustees”). In dismissing the claims, the High Court held that the Trustees did not owe a common law duty of care to the bankrupts.

Patrick Hill and Declan Finn of DAC Beachcroft LLP, who acted on behalf of the successful Trustees, discuss the case and consider its implications for trustees in bankruptcy.

Background

In Purewal v Countrywide Residential Lettings Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1122, the receivers of a property did not make an insurance claim in relation to damage to the property.  The mortgagor of the property (a bankrupt) repaired the property himself.  He brought an action against the receivers for breach of duty by failing to make an insurance claim, claiming damages for the cost of the repairs.

In Paul David Wood & Anor v Timothy Darren Baker & Ors, the joint trustees in bankruptcy of the bankrupt's property successfully obtained injunctions freezing the assets and business of the respondents and restraining them from dealing with such assets and business.  This case is an illustration of how the court may apply the "evasion principle", a principle identified in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd, in piercing the corporate veil.

Background

‘Visit England’ promotes tourism to England and Wales by reference to the beautiful scenery, world-class museums and abundance of culture on offer. Following the recent judgment of JSC Bank of Moscow v Kekhman & Ors [2015] EWHC 396 (Ch) (Kekhman), it should consider adding an advantageous personal insolvency regime to this list. 

The English High Court has granted an injunction to trustees in bankruptcy and pierced the corporate veil of companies which were operated by a bankrupt as his agents and nominees and which held assets on his behalf (Wood and another v Baker and others [2015] EWHC 2536 (Ch)).

Background