0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

divorce settlement no bar to creditors

11 June 2007

Debtors cannot escape creditors by using the divorce laws to transfer assets. In a recent case the High Court set aside a court order for the transfer of property from a husband to his wife following their divorce, on the basis that it was a transaction at an undervalue. It used to be thought that only agreed divorce settlements could be challenged but, in Hill and Another v Haines [2007] EWHC 1012, a Chancery judge ruled that no distinction should be drawn between the situation where a bankrupt husband consents to a property transfer on divorce and one where he is ordered by the matrimonial court to transfer the property. In both cases the trustee in bankruptcy could attack the transaction if no proper consideration changed hands.

In Hill the wife, Mrs Haines, petitioned for divorce and claimed ancillary relief. The court ordered the husband to transfer his interest in their £500,000 Worcestershire home. Subsequently Mr Haines petitioned for bankruptcy and some months afterwards a district judge executed a transfer of the property on his behalf. The trustees in bankruptcy tried to set the transaction aside on the grounds that the wife had failed to give any, or any sufficient, consideration for the transfer within the meaning of sections 339 and 399 of the Insolvency Act 1986 but the court rejected this at first instance.

The trustees appealed successfully. In reaching its decision the court considered a case decided on similar provisions in the Bankruptcy Act 1941. In the 1983 case of re Abbott [1983] 1 Ch 45 the trustee in bankruptcy was blocked from challenging the transfer of the matrimonial home because, the court held, the wife was a purchaser for valuable consideration as she had given up her legal right to pursue her claim under family law in return for the house. The judge in Hill distinguished that case though. First, the language of the 1941 Act was quite different to that of the Insolvency Act 1986. Second, the court in re Abbott was wrong to conclude that foregoing an ancillary relief claim amounted to giving consideration. Subsequent court decisions had made it clear that the consideration given by the transferee had to be measurable in monetary terms, or in "money or moneys worth", such that there could be a comparison between the value obtained by the transferee and the value given by the transferor.

The judge in Hill considered that matrimonial settlements were not the same as other types of claim. There was no legally enforceable contract created because in the event that a party to the compromise had to go to the court to convert the agreement into a court order, the court would not give effect to the bargain automatically. Rather, the court would have to carry out an independent assessment of the agreement under matrimonial law. The judge concluded that the wife had not given consideration for the transfer and it was therefore vulnerable to challenge by the trustees. In the circumstances it upheld the trustees appeal.

Office holders will welcome this decision, as clearly the ability to challenge matrimonial settlements is a useful tool to increase the assets available to creditors.

focus on...

Legal updates

Government extends tenant protections and introduces new code of practice

On 19 June 2020, the Government announced that it was extending the various tenant protections it has brought in over the last few months and, at the same time, published a new voluntary code of practice to provide clarity for businesses when discussing rental payments and to encourage best practice so that all parties are supported.

View

Legal updates

A landlord’s remedies to recover arrears of rent – where are we now?

The Corporate Governance and Insolvency Bill provides detail on the new measures to safeguard the high street against aggressive debt recovery actions during coronavirus.

View

Legal updates

New measures announced to protect the High Street from aggressive rent collection and closure

In a move that will be greatly welcomed by retailers, the Government announced on 23 April that it will introduce new measures to safeguard the High Street against aggressive debt recovery actions during the coronavirus pandemic.

View

Legal updates

Getting through lockdown – your real estate questions answered

Find out more about the confusion around the Government’s support measures for business tenants and what to do if you have a break right during lock down.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up