*/
Bankruptcy and Insolvency – Bankruptcy. The first defendant owed a debt to the second defendant local authority. By a consent order, a judge set aside a bankruptcy order made against the first defendant on the basis that security had been offered by way of a charge on his home. The applicant trustee in bankruptcy applied for an order that the consent order should be rescinded, pursuant to s 375 of the Insolvency Act 1986, relying on alleged debts owed to unsecured creditors, which had not been brought to the court's attention. A district judge ruled that he had no jurisdiction to order rescission of an order made by the High Court and the matter was transferred to the Chancery Division. That court, dismissing the application, held that, applying Appleyard v Wewelwala[2013] 1 All ER 1383, s 375(1) of the Act did not empower review of an order made by a judge of the High Court on appeal under s 375(2) of the Act. In so far as other unsecured creditors might be affected by the provision of the security to a petitioner, it was neither necessary nor appropriate for their interests to be addressed in the context of the issue of whether, where security was offered and rejected, a bankruptcy order should be made or refused.
Bankruptcy and Insolvency – Bankruptcy. The first defendant owed a debt to the second defendant local authority. By a consent order, a judge set aside a bankruptcy order made against the first defendant on the basis that security had been offered by way of a charge on his home. The applicant trustee in bankruptcy applied for an order that the consent order should be rescinded, pursuant to s 375 of the Insolvency Act 1986, relying on alleged debts owed to unsecured creditors, which had not been brought to the court's attention. A district judge ruled that he had no jurisdiction to order rescission of an order made by the High Court and the matter was transferred to the Chancery Division. That court, dismissing the application, held that, applying Appleyard v Wewelwala[2013] 1 All ER 1383, s 375(1) of the Act did not empower review of an order made by a judge of the High Court on appeal under s 375(2) of the Act. In so far as other unsecured creditors might be affected by the provision of the security to a petitioner, it was neither necessary nor appropriate for their interests to be addressed in the context of the issue of whether, where security was offered and rejected, a bankruptcy order should be made or refused.
Barbara Mills KC, the new Chair of the Bar, outlines some key themes and priorities
Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management highlights some of the ways you can cut your IHT bill
Rachel Davenport breaks down everything you need to know about AlphaBiolabs’ industry-leading laboratory testing services for legal matters
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management sets out the key steps to your dream property
A centre of excellence for youth justice, the Youth Justice Legal Centre provides specialist training, an advice line and a membership programme
By Kem Kemal of Henry Dannell
Barbara Mills KC wants to raise the profile of the family Bar. She also wants to improve wellbeing and enhance equality, diversity and inclusion in the profession. She talks to Joshua Rozenberg KC (hon) about her plans for the year ahead
Professor Dominic Regan and Seán Jones KC identify good value bottles across the price spectrum – from festive fizz to reliable reds
Reviews by Daniel Barnett
Governments who play fast and loose with the law get into real trouble, says the new Attorney General. The Rt Hon Lord Hermer KC talks to Anthony Inglese CB about what drew this boy from Cardiff to the Bar, bringing the barrister ethos to the front bench, and how he will be measuring success
Mark Neale, Director General of the Bar Standards Board, offers an update on the Equality Rules consultation
