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
What are the consequences of a money transaction being void under section 284 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), and what relief can the court grant? Joseph Curl, barrister at 9 Stone Buildings, considers the significance of the recent decision in Thomas and another v D’Eye and others.
Thomas and another v D’Eye and others  Lexis Citation 50,  All ER (D) 66 (May)
The Bankruptcy High Court allowed an application for relief by trustees in the bankruptcy of Dean D’Eye, who had made his living from residential and commercial property and was indebted to around the sum of £2.8m. The court held that money in certain accounts belonged to Dean D’Eye, that a flat which had been purchased out of money from one of the accounts was a bankruptcy asset, and that the transfer of shares in a company controlled by Dean D’Eye had been a sham.
This case concerned how to treat payments made by a debtor during the period leading up to and after his bankruptcy. Having started off as an antecedent transaction application, it developed in an unexpected way into a claim to void payments.
A statutory demand was served on Dean D’Eye on 11 July 2011. After a drawn out and ultimately unsuccessful application to set aside the demand, a bankruptcy petition was presented on 28 May 2012. A bankruptcy order was made against Dean D’Eye on 31 July 2012. Trustees in bankruptcy were appointed on 23 September 2012. After their appointment, the trustees discovered that on 24 January 2012 (at a time when the application to set aside the statutory demand was on-foot) the bankrupt had transferred £321,919 from a bank account in his own name to a bank account in the name of his father, Derek D’Eye. It was subsequently transferred to, and dissipated from, another bank account
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
Stephen qualified as a solicitor in 2005 and joined the Restructuring and Insolvency team at Lexis®PSL in September 2014 from Shoosmiths LLP, where he was a senior associate in the restructuring and insolvency team.
Primarily focused on contentious and advisory corporate and personal insolvency work, Stephen’s experience includes acting for office-holders on a wide range of issues, including appointments, investigations and the recovery and realisation of assets (including antecedent transaction claims), and for creditors in respect of the impact on them of the insolvency of debtors and counterparties.
0330 161 1234