||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 34 (Jul)
|| EWCA Civ 931
||Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Thorpe, Rix and Arden LJJ
||Timothy Carlisle (instructed by Lucas & Co, Cardiff) for the wife.
||Lloyd Tamlyn (instructed by the Bar Pro Bono Unit) for the husband.
||3 July 2002
Bankruptcy - Proof - What debts provable - Petition debt based on sums due under maintenance order made in Hong Kong - Order providing for both periodic maintenance and lump sum payment - Whether sums due under order provable for purposes of bankruptcy petition - s 21 - Insolvency Rules 1986, r 12(2), (3).
A foreign maintenance order which was capable of being registered, but had not in fact been registered, could not be brought within r12.3(2)(a) of the Insolvency Rules 1986. However, on the assumption that the foreign court could vary a provision for periodical payments in the Hong Kong order, those periodical payments constituted a debt which by rule of law was unenforceable in the United Kingdom, and, as a result, to which r12.3(3) of the Rules applied. Accordingly, that part of the debt was not provable. However, a provision for a lump sum payment was not variable, and therefore could not fall within r12.3(3).
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary