Nutting and Hill v Khaliq and Another  EWCA Civ 1726;  BPIR 340
(Court of Appeal, Mummery, Etherton LJJ and Sir Scott Baker, 11 October 2012)
A bankruptcy order was made against H. He and his wife lived in their jointly owned home, and a second property was owned by H. N and H were appointed as H's trustees in bankruptcy. The trustees obtained an order for sale of the second property, together with an order that unless the expenses of the bankruptcy were paid within 120-days the first property would be sold. After having made efforts to raise the funds, H and W sought an extension of time after a warrant of possession had been obtained in respect of the first property. An extension was ordered, with no order for costs save a cap on the extent to which the trustees' costs should be payable out of the estate. The Court of Appeal dismissed H's appeal against the costs order. However, as regards W, there was no reason to deprive her of her costs on a successful application. Further, it was necessary to consider the impact of the statutory charge arising by reason of W being legally-aided. It was appropriate for the trustees to pay W's costs, and to limit the trustees' indemnity to 30% in relation to both their and W's costs.
To view the full text, please log in.
To receive a FREE 14 day online trial to Insolvency Law Online click here.
"This is the ultimate statement of where the law on IVAs is to be found in our great common law...