Godfrey v Torpy & Ors [2007] EWHC 919 (Ch) (23 April 2007)

Godfrey v Torpy & Ors [2007] EWHC 919 (Ch) (23 April 2007)

All transactions relating to Shamrock Cottage and 27 Harewood Avenue involving Mr and Mrs Power or Mr Torpy were shams, orchestrated to put assets beyond the reach of creditors, and the dominant purpose was to prejudice creditors. The court found Mrs Power to be the legal and beneficial owner of both properties throughout. Relief under the Insolvency Act 1986 was appropriate, and procedural objections were rejected.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 919 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Noel Godfrey; First Defendant: Laurence Torpy; Second Defendant: Laurence Power; Third Defendant: Strasbourg Capital Limited; Fourth Defendant: Mary Theresa Power (In Bankruptcy); Fifth Defendant: Bellcove Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Transactions at Undervalue, Fraudulent Conveyance, Bankruptcy, Trusts and Beneficial Ownership, Enforcement of Judgments
Insolvency Property Law Trusts Transactions at Undervalue Fraudulent Conveyance Bankruptcy Trusts and Beneficial Ownership Enforcement of Judgments

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Noel Godfrey

Claimant

Laurence Torpy

First Defendant

Laurence Power

Second Defendant

Strasbourg Capital Limited

Third Defendant

Mary Theresa Power (In Bankruptcy)

Fourth Defendant

Bellcove Limited

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether transactions involving Shamrock Cottage and 27 Harewood Avenue were shams or at undervalue to defraud creditors under the Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether Mr Godfrey was entitled to declarations and vesting orders in respect of the properties
  3. 3 Whether procedural requirements under the Insolvency Act 1986 were satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

All transactions relating to Shamrock Cottage and 27 Harewood Avenue involving Mr and Mrs Power or Mr Torpy were shams, orchestrated to put assets beyond the reach of creditors, and the dominant purpose was to prejudice creditors. The court found Mrs Power to be the legal and beneficial owner of both properties throughout. Relief under the Insolvency Act 1986 was appropriate, and procedural objections were rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Declarations that the registered title owners of Shamrock Cottage and 27 Harewood Avenue hold as bare trustees for Mrs Power, subject to legal charges.
  • Orders vesting the legal and beneficial interests in the properties in Mr Godfrey.