Frosdick v Fox & Anor

Frosdick v Fox & Anor

The bankrupt cannot serve a valid notice under section 316 as he is not a person interested in the property after vesting in the trustee; therefore, the trustee's disclaimer was valid and the action discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.

Parties
Claimant: David John Frosdick; First Defendant: Nigel Ian Fox; Second Defendant: Baker Tilly Creditor Services LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Strike Out Claim
Outcome
Claim struck out and dismissed
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy, Trustee's Powers, Disclaimer of Property, Civil Restraint Orders
Insolvency Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Trustee's Powers Disclaimer of Property Civil Restraint Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David John Frosdick

Claimant

Nigel Ian Fox

First Defendant

Baker Tilly Creditor Services LLP

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bankrupt can serve a valid notice under section 316 of the Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether the trustee's disclaimer of a cause of action was valid
  3. 3 Whether the claim discloses reasonable grounds for bringing the action

Ratio Decidendi

The bankrupt cannot serve a valid notice under section 316 as he is not a person interested in the property after vesting in the trustee; therefore, the trustee's disclaimer was valid and the action discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out and dismissed

Orders

  • Claim struck out under CPR 3.4
  • No further Civil Restraint Order made, but warning issued regarding future litigation