Hill v Spread Trustee Company Ltd & Anor

Hill v Spread Trustee Company Ltd & Anor

The appeal was dismissed because the judge was entitled to find that the settlement and later charges/assignment were transactions at an undervalue entered into with the purpose of prejudicing the Revenue as a creditor. The claim was not statute-barred as the cause of action accrued when there was a victim, and the trustee in bankruptcy could bring the claim. The later charges and assignment were for no consideration, and the Revenue remained a victim for the purposes of s.423.

Parties
Applicant/respondent to Appeal: Hill (As Trustee in Bankruptcy of Nurkowski); Respondents/appellants: Spread Trustee Company Ltd & Anor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (on issues argued); further issues stood over for later hearing.
Legal Topics
Transactions at an Undervalue, Fraudulent Conveyances, Limitation Periods, Bankruptcy, Trustee Powers, Tax Evasion
Insolvency Law Trust Law Tax Law Transactions at an Undervalue Fraudulent Conveyances Limitation Periods Bankruptcy Trustee Powers +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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hill (As Trustee in Bankruptcy of Nurkowski)

Applicant/respondent to Appeal

Spread Trustee Company Ltd & Anor

Respondents/appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement and subsequent charges/assignment were transactions at an undervalue under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's claim was statute-barred by limitation
  3. 3 Whether the purpose of the transactions was to prejudice creditors, specifically HM Revenue & Customs

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the judge was entitled to find that the settlement and later charges/assignment were transactions at an undervalue entered into with the purpose of prejudicing the Revenue as a creditor. The claim was not statute-barred as the cause of action accrued when there was a victim, and the trustee in bankruptcy could bring the claim. The later charges and assignment were for no consideration, and the Revenue remained a victim for the purposes of s.423.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (on issues argued); further issues stood over for later hearing.

Orders

  • Declaration that the settlement, later charges, and assignment were transactions within section 423(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986.
  • Trustees to indemnify the bankrupt estate against any claim by HM Revenue & Customs to set aside the tax compromise.