The word ‘and’ in sections 423(2)(a) and 423(2)(b) is to be read conjunctively not disjunctively. Section 238(3) is to be interpreted as requiring restoration of the former position ‘as far as possible’ or ‘as far as practicable’, and that accordingly subsequent events were not an absolute bar against setting aside the sale. Nourse LJ: ‘The … Continue reading Chohan v Saggar and Another: CA 27 Dec 1993
The company sought to claim under a life policy. The deceased had died in Scotland insolvent. The trustee of the policy had declared that he held it on trust for the claimant, but the defendant, the judicial factor of the estate, said the declaration of trust was ineffective as a transaction at an undervalue. The … Continue reading Ramlort Ltd v Michael James Meston Reid: CA 8 Jul 2004
A bankrupt had, before his bankruptcy disposed of his share in a house at an undervalue. His wife appealed an order that the share disposed of should vest entirely in the trustee in bankruptcy. Matrimonial proceedings had also been commenced. Held: The wife was seeking effectively not re-instatement, but the creation of a position which … Continue reading Gita Ram v Baskinder Ram,Solinder Ram, Monder Ram and Maurice William Russell: CA 5 Nov 2004
The department complained that the defendants had entered into a transaction with their farm at an undervalue so as to defeat its claim for recovery of sums due. The transaction used the grant of a tenancy by the first chargee. Held: The farmers’ appeal as to the farm transaction failed: ‘beyond argument that DEFRA was … Continue reading Feakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513): CA 9 Dec 2005
Section 423(3) of the 1986 Act requires a plaintiff to show a dominant purpose to remove assets from the reach of actual or potential claimants or creditors, but not excluding the possibility that there might be other purposes behind the relevant . .
