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.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
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 two related judgments, the High Court has affirmed that standing to attack the decisions of liquidators and trustees in bankruptcy is largely limited to creditors, contributories, and bankrupts where there is likely to be a surplus in the estate. The court struck out challenges brought by former bankrupts who had bid for property for lack of standing. In so doing, it rejected a wide range of arguments as to how a legitimate interest (and standing to challenge) could arise. The decisions serve as a useful reminder that the requirements for standing are construed narrowly. Practitioners may find it interesting that the court expressly rejected an argument based on natural justice and reiterated that those aggrieved by faulty bidding processes must rely on existing common law remedies. Written by Judy Fu, barrister at 3 Verulam Buildings.
Re Stay in Style (in liquidation) and others  EWHC 537 (Ch)
Re Stay in Style (in liquidation) and others  EWHC 538 (Ch)
It is well-established that the courts are generally unwilling to interfere with the administrative and commercial decisions taken by insolvency officeholders, save in cases of fraud or bad faith.
It is also clear that only those with a direct interest in the insolvency process has standing to apply to the court to interfere with the decisions of officeholders.
These judgments provide a useful illustration of those principles: practitioners should bear in mind that unless the applicant is a creditor or contributory, or (in the case of bankrupts) there is likely to be a surplus in the bankrupt estate, applicants are likely to face difficulties in establishing standing to bring a challenge.
These judgments also illustrate the difficulties which can arise where an applicant takes on multiple capacities in an insolvency process.
Here, the applicants were variously former bankrupts, trustees of a family settlement which had bid on the property in issue (which had been sold by the trustee in bankruptcy and which transaction the applicants sought to attack), and former owners and occupiers of the property from which they had been evicted.
It was not sufficient simply to assert that the applicants were ‘persons aggrieved’ under section 168 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in a generalised way.
The judge was careful to distinguish between the capacity in which the applicants bid on the property, and (having found they did so in their capacity as trustees of the family trust) found the applicants to be outsiders with no standing.
Their position as former occupiers or beneficiaries of the family trust did not affect that analysis.
The judgments are part of a wider set of proceedings concerning a property known as West Axnoller Cottage and the liquidation of a partnership trading as ‘Stay in Style’.
The cottage was occupied by the Brakes family, and vested in the Brakes and their former co-investor in Stay in Style for the benefit of that partnership.
The partnership went into liquidation and the Brakes became bankrupt.
The Brakes’ family trust bid on the cottage, but the bid was rejected, and the partnership’s liquidators sold the cottage to the Brakes’ trustee in bankruptcy, who then sold the property on to the Chedington Court Estate (Chedington).
The Brakes (both as trustees of the Brakes family settlement and as bankrupts) applied to attack the decision of the trustee in bankruptcy and the partnership’s liquidators, with the ultimate relief being an order that the liquidators accept the family’s own bid for the cottage. In  EWHC 537 (Ch), Chedington applied to strike out the bankruptcy application, and in  EWHC 538 (Ch), Chedington applied to strike out the liquidation application—both applications were made on the basis that the Brakes had no standing to attack the transactions.
The court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decisions in Re Edennote Limited  2 BCLC 389 and Mahomed v Morris  Lexis Citation 2584, providing that persons who were not creditors or contributories—but are denied an opportunity to acquire property in liquidation—have no standing to complain.
In the bankruptcy application the Brakes relied on the decision in Faryab v Smith  Lexis Citation 1593 for the proposition that a bankrupt need not always demonstrate there was likely to be a surplus in bankruptcy.
That was rejected.
Interestingly, the Brakes also sought to rely on their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, but the court found these to be inappropriate to the question of standing (as an unlawful eviction cannot confer standing to someone who is otherwise an outsider).
The Brakes further invoked natural justice in circumstances where the bidding process was allegedly faulty. The court stated that where an officeholder has behaved unfairly, the bidder’s recourse was to common law remedies. No additional protections were available to bidders where an offeror simply happened to be an insolvency official.
Both applications were struck out for lack of standing.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
0330 161 1234