Bataillon & Anor v Shone & Anor [2016] EWHC 1174 (QB) (20 May 2016)

Bataillon & Anor v Shone & Anor [2016] EWHC 1174 (QB) (20 May 2016)

The court found that the transfers of properties and other assets from Michael Shone to Estlyn Sharon Shone were at an undervalue, as there was no real consideration provided, and that a real and substantial purpose of the transfers was to put assets beyond the reach of creditors, satisfying the requirements of s423 Insolvency Act 1986. The nominee argument was rejected as academic and unsupported by the evidence.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1174 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Marc Bataillon; Claimant: Cyril Marquaire; Defendant: Michael Shone; Defendant: Estlyn Sharon Shone
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil (insolvency/asset Recovery) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim under s423 Insolvency Act 1986 succeeded; nominee claim not determined.
Legal Topics
Transactions at Undervalue, Asset Transfers to Defeat Creditors, Constructive Trusts, Nominee Arrangements, Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986
Insolvency Law Property Law Trusts Law Transactions at Undervalue Asset Transfers to Defeat Creditors Constructive Trusts Nominee Arrangements 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marc Bataillon

Claimant

Cyril Marquaire

Claimant

Michael Shone

Defendant

Estlyn Sharon Shone

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (insolvency/asset Recovery) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether transfers of assets from Michael Shone to Estlyn Sharon Shone were transactions at an undervalue within the meaning of s423 Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether the transfers were made for the statutory purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of creditors
  3. 3 Whether Estlyn Sharon Shone holds assets as nominee for Michael Shone

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the transfers of properties and other assets from Michael Shone to Estlyn Sharon Shone were at an undervalue, as there was no real consideration provided, and that a real and substantial purpose of the transfers was to put assets beyond the reach of creditors, satisfying the requirements of s423 Insolvency Act 1986. The nominee argument was rejected as academic and unsupported by the evidence.

Court Disposition

Claim under s423 Insolvency Act 1986 succeeded; nominee claim not determined.

Orders

  • Relief under s423 granted in respect of the identified assets; form of relief and exercise of discretion to be determined separately.