On 31 July 2012, a bankruptcy order was made in respect of Mr
Dean Jonathan D'Eye on the basis of a statutory demand dated 11
During their investigations, his trustees in bankruptcy
discovered that Mr D'Eye had made a payment of Ł321,919
to his father on 24 January 2012 (the Payment)
and, after the presentation of the bankruptcy petition on 28 May
2012, a significant portion of this money had then been used to
purchase a flat (the Flat).
Pursuant to Section 284 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the trustees
in bankruptcy sought orders that the Payment was void and that the
Flat, which was purchased with the receipts, was a bankruptcy
While Section 284 does not spell out the remedy available as a
result of a disposition being void, its purpose is to ensure equal
treatment of creditors and gives rise to an obligation to account
for money had and received
Despite being made prior to the presentation of the bankruptcy
petition, the Payment was void. To find otherwise would defeat the
aim of Section 284
The Flat, which was purchased with the proceeds of the void
Payment, vested in the trustees outright. It had clearly been
purchased to try and put bankruptcy assets beyond creditors and an
order for possession was consistent with the aims of Section
The case is useful clarification that the remedy for void
payments pursuant to Section 284 is an account for money had and
Moreover, the position is the same for payments made after
bankruptcy and vesting so that, where an asset has been purchased
with a void payment, it may simply be declared part of the
Thomas and another v D'Eye and others  All ER (D)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Witnesses can, in various circumstances, be subpoenaed by the Courts of overseas jurisdictions to attend to give evidence by way of depositions within that jurisdiction. So why not take that one step further and ask a foreign court to subpoena the witness to give evidence by live satellite video link to a Court in London? This would be the next best thing to having the witness present in Court. Indeed, the Commercial Court is increasingly amenable to evidence being given in this way (albeit on a
Gratuitous alienation is one of the most familiar parts of our law and yet relatively rarely seems to come to court. That may be because the law is so well understood that there is little left to debate...
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).