Ashe v Mumford and Others: ChD 7 Mar 2000

The Regulation under question was procedural;, and a failure to comply with its requirements was not to be deemed fatal. The requirement for a trustee to identify the transactions to be set aside did not require every single part of the scheme to be detailed, provided as in this case the purpose of the scheme was clearly to defeat creditors and the trustee in bankruptcy. The mother of a bankrupt purchased her council house with a fifty per cent discount, and was funded as to the rest by the bankrupt’s wife.


Times 07-Mar-2000, Gazette 09-Nov-2000


Insolvency Rules 1986 (1986 No 1925) 7.3

Cited by:

Appeal fromAshe v Mumford CA 2001
The court considered the relative interests arising in the trust of a house bought under the right to buy scheme.
Held: The court upheld the trial judge’s decision that the discount should not be apportioned between the parties, the series of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Insolvency

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77892