Everitt v Budhram & Anor

Everitt v Budhram & Anor

The Deputy District Judge erred in law by considering the appropriateness of bankruptcy proceedings as a debt collection method, by substituting a charging order for an order for sale, and by taking into account the needs of the bankrupt contrary to section 335A. The Judge also committed procedural irregularities by relying on undisclosed correspondence and making a premature order for assessment of costs. The correct approach is to order sale in the interests of creditors, subject to a limited suspension due to the exceptional medical circumstances of the co-owner, Mr Budhram.

Parties
Appellant/trustee in Bankruptcy: Clive Everitt; First Respondent/bankrupt: David Budhram; Second Respondent/bankrupt: Marilyn Budhram
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Order for Sale of Property, Exceptional Circumstances Under Section 335 a Insolvency Act, Trustee's Costs and Remuneration, Procedural Fairness
Insolvency Bankruptcy Property Law Order for Sale of Property Exceptional Circumstances Under Section 335 a Insolvency Act Trustee's Costs and Remuneration Procedural Fairness

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clive Everitt

Appellant/trustee in Bankruptcy

David Budhram

First Respondent/bankrupt

Marilyn Budhram

Second Respondent/bankrupt

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deputy District Judge erred in refusing an order for sale of the bankrupt's property
  2. 2 Whether the Judge erred in law by considering the appropriateness of bankruptcy proceedings as a debt collection method
  3. 3 Whether the Judge erred in substituting a charging order for an order for sale

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy District Judge erred in law by considering the appropriateness of bankruptcy proceedings as a debt collection method, by substituting a charging order for an order for sale, and by taking into account the needs of the bankrupt contrary to section 335A. The Judge also committed procedural irregularities by relying on undisclosed correspondence and making a premature order for assessment of costs. The correct approach is to order sale in the interests of creditors, subject to a limited suspension due to the exceptional medical circumstances of the co-owner, Mr Budhram.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order for sale of the property made in favour of the Trustee, suspended for one year or three months after an order for possession against Mr Budhram, whichever is earlier.
  • Costs summarily assessed in the amount of £14,280.18 in favour of the Trustee.