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
In light of the ruling in Re Whyte, Brittain and another v Whyte and another, Marcia Shekerdemian QC, barrister at Wilberforce Chambers, who acted for the applicants, discusses the main legal issues and arguments before the court, and what trustees in bankruptcy would be prudent to take away from this decision.
Re Whyte, Brittain and another v Whyte and another  Lexis Citation 545,  All ER (D) 03 (Sep)
The applicant trustees in bankruptcy sought directions in a case where both a restraint order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) and a subsequent bankruptcy order had been made against a bankrupt party, W. The High Court held that, on the proper construction of section 306A of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and POCA 2002, s 417, all and any property which was or might become the subject of the restraint order and which would—but for the restraint order, be vested or be capable of vesting in the trustees, including any property acquired by or devolving upon W at any time between the commencement of his bankruptcy and the date of its discharge—would vest in the trustees as part of W’s bankruptcy estate immediately upon the discharge of the restraint order.
Louise Brittain and Keith Stevens, as joint trustees in bankruptcy (TIB) of Mr Whyte (W), sought declarations as to the construction of IA 1986, s 306A and its interface with the restraint order (RO) provisions in POCA 2002.
W is the subject of criminal proceedings in Scotland. On 11 September 2015 (and before W was made bankrupt), the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service obtained an RO in respect of all W’s realisable property under POCA 2002, s 120 (POCA 2002, s 41 in England and Wales). The effect of an RO is to prevent a defendant from dealing with his
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