Moffat v Moffat [2020] NICh 17 (18 December 2020)

Moffat v Moffat [2020] NICh 17 (18 December 2020)

Although the assignment was a transaction at an undervalue, the applicant failed to prove Mrs Moffat's subjective intention was to put assets beyond his reach or prejudice his interests; her genuine belief she had no liability and her stated purposes for the transfer were accepted. Even if prescribed purpose was found, the court would exercise discretion to make no order due to her circumstances.

Citation
[2020] NICh 17
Parties
Applicant: Laurence Moffat; First Named Respondent: Dorothy Moffat; Second Named Respondent: Daire Moffat; Third Named Respondent: Conall Eoin Toland; Fourth Named Respondent: Meabh Emily Toland
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
18 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Application for Declaration Under the Insolvency (northern Ireland) Order 1989 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Transaction at Undervalue, Fraudulent Conveyance, Creditor Protection, Subjective Intention, Court Discretion
Insolvency Property Law Civil Procedure Transaction at Undervalue Fraudulent Conveyance Creditor Protection Subjective Intention Court Discretion

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laurence Moffat

Applicant

Dorothy Moffat

First Named Respondent

Daire Moffat

Second Named Respondent

Conall Eoin Toland

Third Named Respondent

Meabh Emily Toland

Fourth Named Respondent

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Application for Declaration Under the Insolvency (northern Ireland) Order 1989 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does Article 367 of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 apply outside insolvency?
  2. 2 Was the assignment a transaction at an undervalue?
  3. 3 Was the assignment entered into for a prescribed purpose under Article 367?

Ratio Decidendi

Although the assignment was a transaction at an undervalue, the applicant failed to prove Mrs Moffat's subjective intention was to put assets beyond his reach or prejudice his interests; her genuine belief she had no liability and her stated purposes for the transfer were accepted. Even if prescribed purpose was found, the court would exercise discretion to make no order due to her circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed