Hall & Anor v Elia & Anor

Hall & Anor v Elia & Anor

Both Mrs Elia and Mr Elia were refused permission to appeal. Mrs Elia was properly debarred from defending and could not adduce evidence or dispute the Trustee's claims. The Registrar's findings that the Deed of Assignment was a sham, that the Charge only secured €50,000 plus interest, and that the costs orders were justified, were correct. Mr Elia had no standing to challenge the sham finding and could only address possession and sale, but his grounds had no real prospect of success.

Parties
Applicant/trustee in Bankruptcy: Michaela Hall; Applicant/company: E-Clear (UK) Plc (in liquidation); Respondent/applicant for Permission to Appeal: Mili Petrou Elia; Respondent/applicant for Permission to Appeal: Elias Elia
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy/property/appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Registrar's Orders
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused for both Mrs Elia and Mr Elia.
Legal Topics
Sham Transactions, Transaction at Undervalue, Preference, Debarring Orders, Possession and Sale of Property, Costs Orders
Insolvency Property Law Civil Procedure Sham Transactions Transaction at Undervalue Preference Debarring Orders Possession and Sale of Property +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michaela Hall

Applicant/trustee in Bankruptcy

E-Clear (UK) Plc (in liquidation)

Applicant/company

Mili Petrou Elia

Respondent/applicant for Permission to Appeal

Elias Elia

Respondent/applicant for Permission to Appeal

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy/property/appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Registrar's Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deed of Assignment was a sham
  2. 2 Whether the Deed of Assignment should be set aside under Insolvency Act 1986 ss. 339, 340, 423
  3. 3 Whether Mrs Elia paid the £25,000 consideration

Ratio Decidendi

Both Mrs Elia and Mr Elia were refused permission to appeal. Mrs Elia was properly debarred from defending and could not adduce evidence or dispute the Trustee's claims. The Registrar's findings that the Deed of Assignment was a sham, that the Charge only secured €50,000 plus interest, and that the costs orders were justified, were correct. Mr Elia had no standing to challenge the sham finding and could only address possession and sale, but his grounds had no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused for both Mrs Elia and Mr Elia.

Orders

  • Mrs Elia and Mr Elia remain liable for the costs orders as previously ordered.
  • The Trustee remains entitled to sell the property and be registered as proprietor.