Sayers & Anor v Dixon & Anor [2025] EWHC 1886 (Ch) (30 July 2025)

Sayers & Anor v Dixon & Anor [2025] EWHC 1886 (Ch) (30 July 2025)

The court finds that the DoTs and Loan Agreement executed by Mr Dixon in favour of Mrs Dixon were shams, intended to give the false impression that Mr Dixon had divested himself of all assets and income, while retaining control and benefit. The evidence, including contemporaneous documentation, witness testimony, and subsequent conduct, demonstrates that the arrangements were artificial and designed to put assets beyond the reach of creditors, particularly in light of Mr Dixon's professional risks and impending tax liabilities. The DoTs constitute transactions at an undervalue within the meaning of s.423 Insolvency Act 1986, entered for the purpose of prejudicing the interests of...

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1886 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Emma Sayers; Applicant/claimant: Jeremy Willmont; Respondent/defendant: John Charles Dixon; Respondent/defendant: Janet Marie Dixon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy/insolvency Proceedings and Property Claims / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Declarations granted; DoTs and Loan Agreement set aside as void; property transactions void or at undervalue; assets restored to bankruptcy estate.
Legal Topics
Sham Trusts, Transactions at Undervalue, Void Dispositions, Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986, Section 284 Insolvency Act 1986, Section 310 Insolvency Act 1986, Income Payments Order, Creditor Protection, Bankruptcy Estate
Insolvency Trusts Property Law Civil Procedure Sham Trusts Transactions at Undervalue Void Dispositions Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986 +5 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 9 Authorities cited 38 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emma Sayers

Applicant/claimant

Jeremy Willmont

Applicant/claimant

John Charles Dixon

Respondent/defendant

Janet Marie Dixon

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy/insolvency Proceedings and Property Claims / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Declarations of Trust (DoTs) and Loan Agreement executed by Mr Dixon in favour of Mrs Dixon are shams
  2. 2 Whether the DoTs constitute transactions at an undervalue for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of creditors under s.423 Insolvency Act 1986
  3. 3 Whether the property transactions relating to the Barbados and Cambridge properties are void or at an undervalue under the Insolvency Act

Ratio Decidendi

The court finds that the DoTs and Loan Agreement executed by Mr Dixon in favour of Mrs Dixon were shams, intended to give the false impression that Mr Dixon had divested himself of all assets and income, while retaining control and benefit. The evidence, including contemporaneous documentation, witness testimony, and subsequent conduct, demonstrates that the arrangements were artificial and designed to put assets beyond the reach of creditors, particularly in light of Mr Dixon's professional risks and impending tax liabilities. The DoTs constitute transactions at an undervalue within the meaning of s.423 Insolvency Act 1986, entered for the purpose of prejudicing the interests of...

Court Disposition

Declarations granted; DoTs and Loan Agreement set aside as void; property transactions void or at undervalue; assets restored to bankruptcy estate.

Orders

  • Declarations that the DoTs and Loan Agreement are void and ineffective
  • Orders setting aside the DoTs and Loan Agreement