James Sleight (as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Jullian Paula Mascall (deceased)) v Crown Estate Commissioners  EWHC 3489 (Ch)
A trustee who disclaims his interest in a property, loses any entitlement to apply to court at a later date for an order that the property (or any surplus arising from its sale) be vested in him.
Ms Mascall died in December 2014 and, it becoming apparent that the estate was insolvent, the executrix applied to Court for an Insolvency Administration Order. The Applicant Trustee was appointed in the bankruptcy estate of the late Jullian Mascall in December 2015.
Prior to her death, Ms Mascall owned 27 properties. By February 2016, 24 of these properties were in negative equity. Receivers were appointed in relation to certain of those properties and a further 20 were disclaimed by the Trustee as being ‘onerous’.
The case in question relates to two properties which were disclaimed by the Trustee in 2012 and 2016. Notably, the Trustee had obtained valuation advice prior to disclaimer. The effect of the disclaimer was that any rights and interest in the properties reverted to the Crown.
In 2018, the two properties were sold by the mortgagee bank but, having discharged their charge, costs of sale and other expenses, there was a surplus on the two properties of just under £19,000.
The bank (Bank of Scotland) proposed to pay the surplus into court. The Trustee applied for an order that the surplus sums be vested in him, as the Trustee, the effect of which (if successful) would be to raise the projected dividend for creditors from 26p in the £ to 33p in the £.
Pursuant to s315(3) of IA86, a disclaimer:
“operates so as to determine, from the date of the disclaimer, the rights, interest and liabilities of the bankrupt and his estate in or in respect of the property disclaimed…”
Under s320 of IA86, where a Trustee has disclaimed property under s315, an application may be made to court by:
(a) any person who claims an interest in the disclaimed property;
(b) any person who is under a liability in respect of the disclaimed property; or
(c) a person who was in occupation of or entitled to occupy the property, where that property is a dwelling house.
The Trustee applied for an order that the surplus sums vest in him pursuant to s320 of the Insolvency Act 1986. A major premise of the Trustee’s case was that the surplus in question was not being claimed by anyone else (including the Crown Estate Commissioners or the Government Legal Department) and, accordingly, justice was best served by vesting the sums in the Trustee for the benefit of Ms Mascall’s creditors.
The Trustee argued that, despite the fact that he was the one who disclaimed the property originally, he was a person “who claims an interest in the disclaimed property” because he was, in fact, claiming to have an interest.
The Crown took no steps in the proceedings – Burges Salmon (instructed by the Crown) were at pains to ensure that no steps were taken in relation to the properties which may give rise to the suggestion that the Crown had undertaken an “act of management” in relation to the properties, which would result in the benefit (or burden) resting with the Crown.
The Judge described the Trustee’s claim to locus as “obviously bad” on the basis that it would create a circular position if the law was to confer the right to apply for a vesting order on any person who applies for one. Further, the Judge noted that the Trustee had knowingly disclaimed any interest in the properties and was therefore no longer a “person who claims an interest”.
The Judge went on to conclude that s320 IA86 applies to a person who has “a proprietary interest in the asset in question and not simply someone who is “interested” in a much looser legal sense in the asset”.
The Judge therefore summised that the Trustee had no standing to apply for an order vesting the surplus in him. Effectively, by disclaiming the properties, the Trustee had lost any rights to claim any interest in those properties (or the surplus arising as a result of their sale).
As a technical side point, the Judge explained that had the bank applied for a vesting order, vesting title to the properties in it before the sale had taken place (thus, in effect, recreating the freehold title), he could have ordered that the surplus be paid to the Trustee for the benefit of the creditors. However, this had not happened and despite the fact that neither the bank nor the Crown were claiming an interest in the surplus, the Judge stated that he could not order that the surplus be paid to the Trustee on his own application.
The Judge did, however, recognise that this position was “unsatisfactory” and the result would be that the money would “languish with and be held by the court funds office for an indefinite period”.
Until such time as the Crown can overcome its concerns of assuming potential liabilities on a property (or, as in this case, the surplus from the sale of a property), Trustees and other insolvency office-holders should take steps to ensure that properties which he or she intends to disclaim do not have any potential to be sold at a surplus at a later date. Once a property vests in the Crown, a Trustee will face difficulties convincing it to engage in future proceedings.
Roger Elford writes for EG on the UK restructuring regime
Is the UK restructuring regime fit for purpose?
Patrick Gearon FCIArb
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments - DIFC
Charles Russell Speechlys contribute exclusively to Lexology GTDT, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, DIFC 2023.
Patrick Gearon FCIArb
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments - Abu Dhabi
Charles Russell Speechlys exclusively contribute to the Lexology GTDT, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Abu Dhabi chapter.
Melania Constable writes for Property Week on restructuring in the property sector
It is anticipated this judgment may open the gates to further uptake of RPs in the property sector...
Melania Constable and Jessica Williams write for Pharmacy Business on what the collapse of Testerworld means for community pharmacies
What does the collapse of Testerworld mean for community pharmacies?
Administrators beware where more than 20 redundancies are planned
The case of Palmer has confirmed that an insolvency practitioner in the role of an administrator can be prosecuted.
Melania Constable and Georgina O'Sullivan write for P3 Pharmacy on the easing of Covid winding up restrictions
Regulations mean that a creditor can once again rely on an unpaid statutory demand to apply to the court for a winding-up petition.
Dimitri A. Sonier
Dimitri Sonier and Denis Meyer write for Les Echos Solutions on the restructuring and reform of French insolvency law
Dimitri and Denis consider developments to French insolvency law following changes earlier in 2021.
Capital Finance and La Lettre des Juristes d'Affaires report on the recruitment of Denis Meyer as Counsel in the firm's Paris office
Denis joins the firm's Corporate Restructuring and Insolvency team in the Paris office.
Charles Russell Speechlys named in Global Restructuring Review’s GRR 100 2021
Restructuring and Insolvency team ranked in Global Restructuring Review
Privy Council confirms ability of courts to grant freezing injunctions in aid of foreign proceedings – but beware the minority report
Georgina looks at the landmark Privy Council judgment on freezing and interim injunctions
PSV 1982 Limited v Langdon: A Warning for Directors in Breach of Section 216 Insolvency Act 1986
Georgina takes a look at PSV 1982 Limited v Langdon
Global Restructuring Review and Law 360 report on the firm's success on behalf of the joint liquidators of LB GP No 1 Limited
After three years of litigation, the Court of Appeal has unanimously accepted GP1’s grounds of appeal.
Insolvencies and rising prices: the energy retail market in flux
Hanh and Sara take a look at the energy market
Charles Russell Speechlys successfully advises the Joint Liquidators of LB GP No.1 Ltd in Lehman Brothers litigation before the Court of Appeal
LBGP is a company within the Lehman Brothers Group, whose purpose was to raise regulatory capital for parts of the Group.
Court of Appeal reviews key principles to consider when making a non-party costs order
Jamie Tilling writes for ThoughtLeaders4 FIRE Magazine on the ramifications of Al Jaber v Mitchell for insolvency practitioners and their investigations
The Court of Appeal has held that the doctrine of immunity from suit applies to statements made by an examinee.
Global Restructuring Review feature the firm’s involvement advising the joint liquidators of LB GP No 1 Limited in the Lehman Brothers’ sub-debt appeal
The Lehman Brothers’ sub-debt appeal continues with guarantor question.
The importance of anticipating the restructuring of State Guaranteed Loans
Denis looks at the importance of anticipating the restructuring of State Guaranteed Loans
Phase out of temporary restrictions on use of winding up petitions
Hannah takes a look at the recent UK Government announcement on statutory demands and the presentation of winding up petitions