Kremen v Agrest

Kremen v Agrest

Payment out of a court fund, especially where beneficial ownership is disputed, does not satisfy the requirement under section 5 of the Debtors Act 1869 that the debtor must satisfy the debt for discharge of a committal order.

Parties
Appellant: Kremen; Respondent: Agrest
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Holman J in Family Financial Proceedings
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Financial Orders, Committal for Contempt, Debtors Act 1869 Section 5, Suspended Committal Orders
Family Law Civil Procedure Enforcement of Financial Orders Committal for Contempt Debtors Act 1869 Section 5 Suspended Committal Orders

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

Parties

Kremen

Appellant

Agrest

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Holman J in Family Financial Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payment out of a court fund satisfies a debtor's liability under section 5 of the Debtors Act 1869
  2. 2 Whether the proceeds used to pay the debt were beneficially owned by the respondent
  3. 3 Whether the committal order should be discharged

Ratio Decidendi

Payment out of a court fund, especially where beneficial ownership is disputed, does not satisfy the requirement under section 5 of the Debtors Act 1869 that the debtor must satisfy the debt for discharge of a committal order.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Paragraph 1 of Holman J's order, discharging the suspended committal order and warrant, is set aside.
  • The warrant for committal remains in effect and capable of execution.