Tanner v Millar [2013] EWHC 750 (Ch) (23 January 2013)

Tanner v Millar [2013] EWHC 750 (Ch) (23 January 2013)

The application for permission to appeal was dismissed because the fresh evidence sought to be adduced could have been obtained with reasonable diligence, would not have an important influence on the result, and was not presumably to be believed. The bankrupt was found to be insolvent at the relevant time, the payments were transactions at an undervalue, and there was no legal obligation or constructive trust justifying the payments. There was no basis for the court to exercise discretion not to order repayment under section 339 of the Insolvency Act.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 750 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant: Tanner; Respondent: Millar
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Renewed Oral Application for Permission to Appeal (bankruptcy/insolvency) / Application for Permission to Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Transaction at an Undervalue, Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Constructive Trust, Discretion Under Insolvency Act, Assessment of Insolvency
Insolvency Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Transaction at an Undervalue Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal Constructive Trust Discretion Under Insolvency Act Assessment of Insolvency

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tanner

Appellant

Millar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Renewed Oral Application for Permission to Appeal (bankruptcy/insolvency) / Application for Permission to Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the bankrupt was insolvent at the time of the transaction
  3. 3 Whether payments were transactions at an undervalue

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal was dismissed because the fresh evidence sought to be adduced could have been obtained with reasonable diligence, would not have an important influence on the result, and was not presumably to be believed. The bankrupt was found to be insolvent at the relevant time, the payments were transactions at an undervalue, and there was no legal obligation or constructive trust justifying the payments. There was no basis for the court to exercise discretion not to order repayment under section 339 of the Insolvency Act.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • No order for repayment set aside; original order stands