Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission v Beesley & Anor

Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission v Beesley & Anor

The Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission is a creditor for IVA purposes and is entitled to vote at creditors' meetings; the terms of the IVA in this case are unfairly prejudicial to the Applicant because they deprive it of the right to enforce and collect arrears in full, a right not enjoyed by other...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission; First Respondent: Mark Beesley; Second Respondent: Darren Richard Whyman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Application Under Insolvency Act / Judgment After Hearing of Applications Under Sections 262 and 263 of the Insolvency Act 1986
Outcome
Application under section 263 dismissed; application under section 262 succeeds; approval of the IVA revoked; no order as to costs save for public funding assessment of Second Respondent's costs; permission to appeal refused to both parties.
Legal Topics
Individual Voluntary Arrangements (iva), Child Maintenance Arrears, Creditor Status Under Insolvency Act, Unfair Prejudice in IVA
Insolvency Law Family Law Individual Voluntary Arrangements (iva) Child Maintenance Arrears Creditor Status Under Insolvency Act Unfair Prejudice in IVA

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission

Applicant

Mark Beesley

First Respondent

Darren Richard Whyman

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Insolvency Act / Judgment After Hearing of Applications Under Sections 262 and 263 of the Insolvency Act 1986

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission is a creditor for IVA purposes
  2. 2 Whether the terms of the IVA are unfairly prejudicial to the Applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission is a creditor for IVA purposes and is entitled to vote at creditors' meetings; the terms of the IVA in this case are unfairly prejudicial to the Applicant because they deprive it of the right to enforce and collect arrears in full, a right not enjoyed by other creditors, and thus the approval of the IVA must be revoked.

Court Disposition

Application under section 263 dismissed; application under section 262 succeeds; approval of the IVA revoked; no order as to costs save for public funding assessment of Second Respondent's costs; permission to appeal refused to both parties.

Orders

  • Approval of the IVA proposal given at the creditors meeting held on 11 March 2009 is revoked.
  • No order as to costs save for a public funding assessment of the Second Respondent’s costs.