As regards jointly owned family homes, decisions made under the now repealed section 30 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (notably Re Citro (Domenico) (a bankrupt) [1991] Ch 142) established that where an application for a sale order was made by a trustee in bankruptcy of a joint owner, then, save in the most exceptional circumstances, the interests of the creditors had to prevail.
Since the passing of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TLATA) a similar pro-creditor regime has applied to trustee applications made more than one year after the statutory vesting of the bankrupt’s property: see para 3 of section 335A of the Insolvency Act 1986, as inserted by section 25 of the TLATA. At that point, as recently illustrated by In the matter of Bennett [2000] EGCS 41, the court must assume, unless the circumstances are exceptional, that the interests of the creditors are paramount.
From the standpoint of the family, a somewhat more benign regime operates where such an order is sought by a creditor having a mortgage or charge over a joint owner’s beneficial interest: see Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Shaire [2000] EGCS 35 and
As regards jointly owned family homes, decisions made under the now repealed section 30 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (notably Re Citro (Domenico) (a bankrupt) [1991] Ch 142) established that where an application for a sale order was made by a trustee in bankruptcy of a joint owner, then, save in the most exceptional circumstances, the interests of the creditors had to prevail.
Since the passing of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TLATA) a similar pro-creditor regime has applied to trustee applications made more than one year after the statutory vesting of the bankrupt’s property: see para 3 of section 335A of the Insolvency Act 1986, as inserted by section 25 of the TLATA. At that point, as recently illustrated by In the matter of Bennett [2000] EGCS 41, the court must assume, unless the circumstances are exceptional, that the interests of the creditors are paramount.
From the standpoint of the family, a somewhat more benign regime operates where such an order is sought by a creditor having a mortgage or charge over a joint owner’s beneficial interest: see Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Shaire [2000] EGCS 35 and PP 2000/12.
