All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
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.
"This is the ultimate statement of where the law on IVAs is to be found in our great common law...