Ram v Ram & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 1452 (05 November 2004)

Ram v Ram & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 1452 (05 November 2004)

Section 423 does not permit the court to give the wife priority or parity with bankruptcy creditors; the correct order is to vest the property in the trustee, restoring the position as if the transaction had not occurred. The wife's claim is not a provable debt in bankruptcy, and the current law, though anomalous, is not discriminatory in the relevant sense under the ECHR.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1452
Parties
Appellant: Gita Ram; Respondent: Baskinder Ram; Respondent: Solinder Ram; Respondent: Monder Ram; Respondent: Maurice William Russell (trustee in bankruptcy of Baskinder Ram)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Transactions at Undervalue, Bankruptcy and Matrimonial Proceedings, Provable Debts, Discrimination Under ECHR, Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986
Insolvency Law Family Law Bankruptcy Transactions at Undervalue Bankruptcy and Matrimonial Proceedings Provable Debts Discrimination Under ECHR Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gita Ram

Appellant

Baskinder Ram

Respondent

Solinder Ram

Respondent

Monder Ram

Respondent

Maurice William Russell (trustee in bankruptcy of Baskinder Ram)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the wife's claim under a matrimonial order should have priority or parity with bankruptcy creditors in the distribution of assets recovered under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether section 423 permits the court to vest property in the wife to protect her interests as a 'victim' of a transaction at undervalue
  3. 3 Whether the exclusion of matrimonial claims from provable debts in bankruptcy is discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

Section 423 does not permit the court to give the wife priority or parity with bankruptcy creditors; the correct order is to vest the property in the trustee, restoring the position as if the transaction had not occurred. The wife's claim is not a provable debt in bankruptcy, and the current law, though anomalous, is not discriminatory in the relevant sense under the ECHR.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.