Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2002] All ER (D) 34 (Jul)
Neutral Citation: [2002] EWCA Civ 931
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judge:

Thorpe, Rix and Arden LJJ

Representation Timothy Carlisle (instructed by Lucas & Co, Cardiff) for the wife.
  Lloyd Tamlyn (instructed by the Bar Pro Bono Unit) for the husband.
Judgment Dates: 3 July 2002

Catchwords

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).

The Case

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).

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.