Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Four allegations of a bankrupt’s failure to co-operate with the official receiver (OR) were held to be proven and of sufficient seriousness to merit the making of a bankruptcy restrictions order (BRO). The case sheds light on the kind of conduct required for a BRO to be made, and what actions might be considered an effort to frustrate the administration of a bankruptcy estate.
Written by Daniel Webb, barrister, at Selborne Chambers.
Official Receiver v Baxendale-Walker  EWHC 195 (Ch)
The case is an example of the court considering allegations of a bankrupt’s failure to co-operate with their trustees in bankruptcy and determining that a BRO was merited. The jurisdiction can be found in paragraph 1 of Schedule 4A to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). IA 1986, Sch 4A, para 2(2) sets out the kinds of behaviour of which the court should take particular account, but Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Mullen noted in this case that the list is not exhaustive. The list includes failing to co-operate with the OR or trustee in bankruptcy but does not give further detail of what that might include.
The allegations proven in this case show how serious the failure to co-operate will be to merit the BRO. The judge stated that the bankrupt’s failure to disclose the extent of his assets and deliver up electronic devices was not mere inadvertence or misunderstanding. Since they were part of an effort to frustrate the administration of his estate, they merited a BRO.
It is important to note that the bankrupt did not file evidence and the matter proceeded as an uncontested disposal. That is, the bankrupt was limited to submissions on the law and the OR’s evidence. In that context, the court regarded allegations of nominee arrangements and loans with suspicion, and ultimately found them to be unproven.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234