The bankrupt wished to discharge his bankruptcy debt, but challenged the trustee’s fees.
Held: The court approved application of the Practice Statement 2004.
Proudman J said: ‘The court’s task is to balance all the various criteria, resolving any conflict between them arising in the particular case, in order to arrive at the proper level of remuneration. In doing so, it is settled law that the court has to reward the value and benefits of the services rendered rather than the cost of rendering such services. Thus, in fixing the remuneration, time spent is less relevant than value provided. I was referred to the judgment of Ferris J in Mirror Group Newspapers plc v Maxwell and Others (No 2) [1998] 1 BCLC 638, [1998] BCC 324 and also Cooper v The Official Receiver [2005] NICh 1. The onus of demonstrating such value or benefit is on the applicant and the court must resolve any element of doubt in favour of the estate.’
Judges:
Proudman J
Citations:
[2009] EWHC B13 (Ch), [2009] BPIR 810
Links:
Statutes:
Insolvency Act 1986 375(2), Insolvency Rules 1986 74(2), Practice Statement: The Fixing and Approval of the Remuneration of Appointees (2004)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Brook v Reed CA 25-Mar-2011
The court was asked ‘What relation should the costs and remuneration bear to the circumstances, and in particular the size, of the bankruptcy?’ The bankrupt had considered that the costs first awarded to the trustee in bankruptcy and the trustee’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insolvency, Costs
Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.420430