Bankruptcy and the matrimonial home

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

The matrimonial home is a central feature of many bankruptcy cases as it is often the most valuable asset in the estate available to be realised for the benefit of creditors. Because the matrimonial home is also usually the place where the bankrupt and their family live, there are many issues which may affect how it is dealt with. Such issues can often include:

  1. •

    whether the trustee in bankruptcy (trustee) has an interest in the property at all

  2. •

    whether any adjustments need to be made on the net sale proceeds

  3. •

    whether the court should make an order for possession and sale

  4. •

    the overlap with family law

The extent of the trustee's interest

The assets that vest in the trustee are the assets that comprise the bankruptcy estate. These will include all assets the bankrupt had a legal or beneficial interest in at the time the bankruptcy order was made (sections 283, 283A, and 436 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986)). For further reading, see:

  1. •

    Practice Note: Definition of the bankruptcy estate and which assets vest in the trustee in

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

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Restructuring & Insolvency News

Koza Altin v Koza Ltd and Mr Hamdi Akin Ipek [2025]

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This is another decision concerning whether and when the court will make a winding up order on just and equitable grounds in the case of a deadlock, albeit on unusual facts and in the context of summary judgment and strike out. This case centres on a very long-running dispute between (i) Mr Hamdi Ipek (the Director), the sole director of Koza Ltd (the Company) and (disputed) holder of a single class ‘A’ ordinary share in it, and (ii) the holder of all of the other issued share capital in the Company, Koza Altin (the Parent). The Parent alleged (among other things) that the Director had spent Company funds at an alarming rate and failed to implement special resolutions it had passed as the effective sole shareholder. In this latest round, the Petitioner had petitioned for the Company’s winding up on just and equitable grounds to resolve that ‘intolerable position’, and then applied for summary judgment on its petition (alternatively, strike out of the Company’s defence to the petition). The court dismissed the Petitioner’s application, largely on the basis that an undertaking which was given by the Director to the court to address the Parent’s concerns. Written by Sam Fenwick, partner, and Rhian Bevan, trainee solicitor, at Wedlake Bell LLP.

Insolvency Service announces update on INSSight system rollout

The Insolvency Service has announced that the rollout of its new internal case management system, INSSight, will begin in late October 2025 and continue into early November 2025. The system will support Official Receiver Services and Estate Accounts, including banking functions, and will operate alongside the existing ISCIS Online system, which will remain available during the transition. During the rollout, users may experience processing delays for cheque or BACS payment requests, the allocation of receipts to the Insolvency Service Account (ISA) and bulk case transfers. Access to the Individual Insolvency Register (IIR) will remain available throughout, although there will be a temporary suspension of new Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA) registrations and bankruptcy orders. Debt Relief Orders will be unaffected, and the Director Conduct Reporting System will remain available. However, access to information for creditor nominations for routine Insolvency Practitioner appointments and for case handovers following appointments will be limited during the transition. From 3 November 2025, Insolvency Practitioners will be required to use new templates for unclaimed receipts, cheque and BACS payment requisitions, IVA registrations and bulk transfers.

Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—9 October 2025

This week's edition of Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights includes: recently published guidance on the voluntary COVID—19 repayment scheme, updated guidance on AML information sharing measures under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act (ECCTA) 2023, plus a round-up of other news and cases for restructuring and insolvency professionals.

Occupation of premises is not trading and so res judicata did not apply (Nicholson v Masood)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court dismissed an application by liquidators to strike out a defence on the ground that the issues had already been determined at a previous hearing and so should not be re-tried. The court found that the key issue in this misfeasance claim was whether the company had traded from certain premises, whereas the previous decision (as to whether the company was liable for business rates) had been based on whether the company was in occupation of those premises. That was sufficient a distinction to demonstrate that the defence was not an attempt to retry a matter already determined by a court. Further, as the earlier judgement focused on a slightly different question, those proceedings could not have been anticipated to resolve this very substantial claim brought against the three respondents personally who were not the parties to the earlier action (that was the company) and only one of them was a privy of the company. Written by Mark Sands, partner at Opus Restructuring and Insolvency.

View Restructuring & Insolvency by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?What is an appeal?An appeal in insolvency proceedings is no different to an appeal in normal litigation. An appeal will be allowed only if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of a

Fraudulent trading claims under sections 213 and 246ZA of the Insolvency Act 1986

Fraudulent trading claims under sections 213 and 246ZA of the Insolvency Act 1986A fraudulent trading claim arises under two separate statutory routes: •it is a criminal offence under section 993 of the Companies Act 2006•a civil remedy arises under sections 213 and 246ZA of the Insolvency Act 1986

Where proceedings are ongoing and the defendant enters creditors’ voluntary liquidation but the

Where proceedings are ongoing and the defendant enters creditors’ voluntary liquidation but the liquidators refuse to settle proceedings (drop hands) without payment of their costs to date, is there any authority for getting paid costs as an expense of the liquidation or attaching personal liability

When is a person ‘connected’ with a company under section 249 of the Insolvency Act 1986?

When is a person ‘connected’ with a company under section 249 of the Insolvency Act 1986?This Practice Note considers when a person is ‘connected’ with a company under section 249 of the Insolvency Act 1986.The term ‘connected’ is particularly important to understand in relation to antecedent
What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?What is an appeal?An appeal in insolvency proceedings is no different to an appeal in normal litigation. An appeal will be allowed only if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of a

Fraudulent trading claims under sections 213 and 246ZA of the Insolvency Act 1986

Fraudulent trading claims under sections 213 and 246ZA of the Insolvency Act 1986

Fraudulent trading claims under sections 213 and 246ZA of the Insolvency Act 1986A fraudulent trading claim arises under two separate statutory routes: •it is a criminal offence under section 993 of the Companies Act 2006•a civil remedy arises under sections 213 and 246ZA of the Insolvency Act 1986

Where proceedings are ongoing and the defendant enters creditors’ voluntary liquidation but the

Where proceedings are ongoing and the defendant enters creditors’ voluntary liquidation but the

Where proceedings are ongoing and the defendant enters creditors’ voluntary liquidation but the liquidators refuse to settle proceedings (drop hands) without payment of their costs to date, is there any authority for getting paid costs as an expense of the liquidation or attaching personal liability

When is a person ‘connected’ with a company under section 249 of the Insolvency Act 1986?

When is a person ‘connected’ with a company under section 249 of the Insolvency Act 1986?

When is a person ‘connected’ with a company under section 249 of the Insolvency Act 1986?This Practice Note considers when a person is ‘connected’ with a company under section 249 of the Insolvency Act 1986.The term ‘connected’ is particularly important to understand in relation to antecedent