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
Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Jones has given guidance on the procedure for making applications and the content of orders under section 365 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), including on the requirement to give full and frank disclosure on applications made without notice. Although almost every aspect of the application for—and execution of—the orders came under criticism from the judge, the judge nevertheless held that the orders should stand, with variations. Written by Samuel Parsons, barrister, at Guildhall Chambers.
Lasytsya v Koumettou and another (trustees in bankruptcy of the estate of Lasytsya)  EWHC 660 (Ch)
The judgment of ICCJ Jones is useful for the guidance it provides on the conduct of applications for search and seizure orders, including during the hearing, the terms of an appropriate order, and how the search should be carried out.
For a search and seizure order to be made there must be:
a real risk that the property may otherwise be dissipated, destroyed or otherwise disposed of
proportionality between the value of the property and the remedy, and
a balance between the rights of third parties affected and the need to recover the property
At the hearing, there is a duty on the advocate of full and frank disclosure and to draw the court’s attention to weaknesses in the potential case. An incorrect conclusion and an absence of serious thought can be criticised but, as the Court of Appeal observed in The Kapetan Markos  Lexis Citation 1571, it will not amount to a material misrepresentation or non-disclosure.
a provision as to the handling of electronic devices and records
The order should be served with a note of the hearing. Consideration should be given for the inclusion of a return date so that the same issues can be considered inter partes.
Ms Lasytsya’s trustees in bankruptcy made an application for a search and seizure order through their solicitors and counsel, as well as a second, related application for assistance. The trustees had concerns that, in essence, Ms Lasytsya had failed to declare the full extent of the assets that comprised her bankruptcy estate.
There were several problems and identifiable failures in the way the trustees dealt with obtaining and executing the orders.
The skeleton argument provided to the court did not deal with any potential weaknesses or unexplained matters. The note of the hearing was brief and unsatisfactory, but it appears nothing was said at the hearing that might have addressed the omissions in the skeleton argument. The court granted the applications and made two wide-ranging orders that permitted the search and seizure.
The trustees failed to apply for a warrant. The first order was not limited to property belonging to the bankrupt (and therefore went beyond the ambit of IA 1986, s 365). It did not contain any of the safeguards identified by ICCJ Jones. In particular, it failed to make express reference to the right of Ms Lasytsya to apply to set aside or vary the order.
Ms Lasytsya applied (in person) for a wide range of relief, including that the orders be set aside, for the return of items with a value of under £200, and copies of various documents.
The judge relied extensively on the distinction between (i) the duty of full and frank disclosure which, if not adhered to, will constitute a breach of duty, and (ii) incorrect submissions or arguments, which are neither material misrepresentations nor non-disclosure. The judge found (at para ) that that the trustees’ conduct fell on the right side of the line, but summarised his criticisms in the way the case had been presented at paras –.
The solution arrived at by the judge (at para ) was to vary the orders to apply to what had already been seized, without discharging the original orders.
It appears that there may have been negative costs consequences for the trustees (at paras  and [121(i)]). However, the effects of that decision would appear to be minimal, given Ms Lasytsya appeared in person.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
Zahra started working as a paralegal at LexisNexis in the Lexis®PSL Banking & Finance and Restructuring & Insolvency teams in April 2019 and moved to the Corporate team in June 2020, where she currently works as a Market Tracker Analyst. Zahra graduated with 2.1 honours in BA French and Spanish and completed the GDL at BPP University. She has undertaken voluntary work for law firms in London, Argentina and Colombia.
0330 161 1234