Pickard & Anor v Constable [2017] EWHC 2475 (Ch) (06 October 2017)

Pickard & Anor v Constable [2017] EWHC 2475 (Ch) (06 October 2017)

The District Judge erred by making findings not supported by evidence, failing to properly consider the alternative of a fixed postponement period, and not adequately balancing the interests of creditors against the exceptional circumstances. The evidence did not justify an indefinite postponement; a 12-month...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2475 (Ch)
Parties
Appellants: Martin Pickard & Ann Nilsson as Joint Trustees in Bankruptcy of Pauline Constable; Respondent: Derek Constable
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy—trustee's Application for Sale of Bankrupt's Home, Exceptional Circumstances Under Insolvency Act 1986 S.335 a, Postponement of Sale and Possession, Balancing Interests of Creditors and Non Bankrupt Spouse
Insolvency Property Law Bankruptcy—trustee's Application for Sale of Bankrupt's Home Exceptional Circumstances Under Insolvency Act 1986 S.335 a Postponement of Sale and Possession Balancing Interests of Creditors and Non Bankrupt Spouse

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Pickard & Ann Nilsson as Joint Trustees in Bankruptcy of Pauline Constable

Appellants

Derek Constable

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Judge erred in law or principle in indefinitely postponing sale and possession of the bankrupt's property due to the medical condition of the non-bankrupt spouse
  2. 2 Whether the evidence justified an indefinite postponement or required a shorter, fixed period
  3. 3 Whether the District Judge failed to properly balance the interests of creditors against the exceptional circumstances of the respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge erred by making findings not supported by evidence, failing to properly consider the alternative of a fixed postponement period, and not adequately balancing the interests of creditors against the exceptional circumstances. The evidence did not justify an indefinite postponement; a 12-month postponement with liberty to apply for extension on further evidence is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order for sale and possession postponed for 12 months until 6 October 2018
  • Liberty to Mr Constable to apply to vary the date for possession and to adduce further evidence