Reviewable transactions

Certain transactions entered into by a company or an individual within a specified period before insolvency or bankruptcy may be set aside, or otherwise adjusted, by the court on the application of an administrator, liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy.

Companies

In relation to a company, the transactions that may be set aside or adjusted by the court are:

•
transactions at an undervalue
•
preferences
•
transactions defrauding creditors
•
extortionate credit transactions
•
certain floating charges

Transactions at an undervalue—companies

A company enters into a transaction with a person at an undervalue if it:

•
makes a gift to him, or otherwise enters into a transaction with him, on terms that the company receives no consideration, or
•
enters into a transaction with him where the value of the consideration it receives is significantly less than that it provides

Where a company has, at a relevant time, entered into a transaction with any person at an undervalue, an administrator or liquidator may apply to court for an order restoring the position to what it would have been if the company had not entered into that transaction.

See Practice Note: Quick

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Private Client News

Question of the week: If the sole trustee of a trust appoints an additional trustee to sell trust property, in order to overreach the beneficial interest in the property, do the beneficiaries of the trust have the right to receive information about the identity of the additional trustee?

This Q&A considers whether a beneficiary of a trust has a right to receive information, on request, about the identity of the trustees.

All in? Court confirms when a settlement is 'made' for the purposes of excluded property (Accuro Trust (Switzerland) SA v The Commissioners for HMRC)

Private Client analysis: This case considered the meaning of 'relevant property' under the settlements regime of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) and, in particular, the time at which this definition is to be tested. The question arose as to whether the trustees of an offshore trust established by a non-UK domiciled settlor were subject to the UK settlements regime in respect of property added to the trust after the settlor became deemed domiciled in the UK, or whether they were exempt from such charges as the trust consisted solely of excluded property. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) held that whether trust property is excluded property is based on the status of the trust at the time that it was established, not at the time that the property in question was added to the settlement. As a result, the trust in this case did consist solely of excluded property and no inheritance tax (IHT) charges arose as a result of either the ten-year anniversary or capital distributions. The FTT was also asked to consider whether their jurisdiction was appellate, or supervisory only. The FTT held that, while their jurisdiction was supervisory, the questions raised by the trustees were relevant in establishing whether HMRC had acted reasonably and that the outcome (ie that the paid IHT should be refunded and that no further IHT was due) would be the same in either case. Written by Katherine Willmott, senior associate solicitor at Foot Anstey LLP.

Principles applicable by Court of Protection for recognition and enforcement of Scottish Guardianship order (Argyll and Bute Council v RF)

Private Client analysis: The case concerns a guardianship order made in Scotland in January 2025 for three years in respect of RF. There were two issues in the case. The first was whether the guardianship order gave Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Local Authority’) the power to authorise the deprivation of RF’s liberty in England. The second issue was, if so, whether the Court of Protection in England and Wales should grant recognition and enforcement of the guardianship order as applied for by the Local Authority. The Official Solicitor on behalf of RF opposed the application on the grounds that there was no effective route for RF to challenge his confinement or trigger a review of the restrictions on him. In dealing with these arguments the court gave a useful analysis of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) as applied to any specific guardianship order. Written by Lynne Counsell, barrister at Addington Chambers.

Ex-solicitor hit with first individual tax avoidance stop notice

Law360, London: HMRC has ordered a struck-off solicitor to stop promoting two tax avoidance schemes, the first notice of its kind issued against an individual, the tax authority said on 15 May 2025.