Investec v. Booth [2016] 1 JLR 101 (27 January 2016)

Investec v. Booth [2016] 1 JLR 101 (27 January 2016)

The court dismissed the creditor's appeal, holding that desastre was the appropriate procedure in the circumstances, as the court was not satisfied that degrèvement would be better for unsecured creditors and desastre allows for debtor discharge and spouse applications under the law.

Citation
[2016] 1 JLR 101
Parties
Creditor: Investec; Debtor: Booth
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
27 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Appeal / Appeal Against Declaration of Desastre
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Desastre, Degrèvement, Creditor Rights, Debtor Discharge
Bankruptcy Desastre Degrèvement Creditor Rights Debtor Discharge

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Investec

Creditor

Booth

Debtor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Appeal / Appeal Against Declaration of Desastre

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the declaration of desastre was appropriate instead of degrèvement
  2. 2 Whether degrèvement would be better for unsecured creditors

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the creditor's appeal, holding that desastre was the appropriate procedure in the circumstances, as the court was not satisfied that degrèvement would be better for unsecured creditors and desastre allows for debtor discharge and spouse applications under the law.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration of desastre affirmed