In re Cutts (a bankrupt); Ex parte Bognor Mutual Building Society: CA 1956

Decisions are often made not for a single reason but for a number.
The phrase ‘with a view of’ a fraudulent preference was given to one creditor over others, it required it to be established what the person’s dominant intention was.
Lord Evershed MR said: ‘If a debtor, knowing himself to be insolvent and knowing also that bankruptcy is imminent, deliberately elects to pay his oldest friend or his closest relative and to leave his other creditors unpaid or with little chance of being paid, it would appear to me to be irrelevant that he made the selection because of the love he bore for his friend or relative or because of his hopes for general but unspecified favours from them in the future…For if a debtor deliberately selects for payment A in preference to all his other creditors, it cannot, to my mind, matter, in the absence of other relevant circumstances, whether A is the debtor’s oldest friend, closest relative or best client.’

Lord Evershed MR, Jenkins and Hodson LJJ
[1956] 2 All ER 537, [1956] 1 WLR 728
Bankruptcy Act 1914 44(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedMacDonald (Inspector of Taxes) v Dextra Accessories Ltd and Others ChD 16-Apr-2003
The inspector sought to disallow charging to current tax period payments made by the employer to an employee benefit trust.
Held: The payments were not made and held by the trustees ‘with a view to becoming relevant emoluments’ within the . .
CitedMacDonald (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Dextra Accessories Ltd and others CA 28-Jan-2004
The company had set up a trust for the benefit of its employees. The Inspector sought to tax the payments made into the trust as ’emoluments’
Held: The appeal was allowed. The payments were ‘potential emoluments’ which were held by the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 16 November 2021; Ref: scu.181851