Sands v Singh & Ors

Sands v Singh & Ors

The January Charge was a sham and void as it was intended to give the false impression of indebtedness; the April Charge was not proved to be a sham or preference as the loan was contemporaneous with the security; the Trust Deed and Consent Order were not set aside as there was no collusion or wholly inadequate consideration, and the transaction was not at an undervalue under the Insolvency Act 1986.

Parties
Applicant: Mr Mark Sands; Respondent: Mr Tarlochan Singh; Respondent: Mr Chanan Singh Thandi; Respondent: Ms Susan Kaur; Respondent: Mrs Ramandeep Kaur; Respondent: Miss Jessica Kaur; Respondent: Miss Karina Kaur
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy/insolvency Application / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Application partly allowed, partly dismissed
Legal Topics
Sham Transactions, Preferences, Transaction at Undervalue, Transaction Defrauding Creditors, Ancillary Relief, Trusts, Bankruptcy
Insolvency Family Law Property Law Sham Transactions Preferences Transaction at Undervalue Transaction Defrauding Creditors Ancillary Relief +2 more

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Mark Sands

Applicant

Mr Tarlochan Singh

Respondent

Mr Chanan Singh Thandi

Respondent

Ms Susan Kaur

Respondent

Mrs Ramandeep Kaur

Respondent

Miss Jessica Kaur

Respondent

Miss Karina Kaur

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy/insolvency Application / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the January Charge was a sham and void
  2. 2 Whether the April Charge was a sham or a preference
  3. 3 Whether the Trust Deed and Consent Order constituted a transaction at an undervalue or defrauding creditors

Ratio Decidendi

The January Charge was a sham and void as it was intended to give the false impression of indebtedness; the April Charge was not proved to be a sham or preference as the loan was contemporaneous with the security; the Trust Deed and Consent Order were not set aside as there was no collusion or wholly inadequate consideration, and the transaction was not at an undervalue under the Insolvency Act 1986.

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed, partly dismissed

Orders

  • The January Charge is declared a sham and a nullity.
  • The April Charge is not set aside and stands.