Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Mr D Leader (instructed by Black & Co) for the Applicant Mr J Dennison (instructed by HM Customs & Excise) for the Respondent Hearing date: 26 April 2005 ____________________
Where the Court is so satisfied, subject to section 83(2), it must grant a certificate: see Re May Yoong Forwell , paragraph 20. Section 83(2)(a) concerns the realisable property of a person who is bankrupt and is not relevant in the present case. By section 83(2)(b), for the purposes of section 83(1):
At issue in this application is whether the "realisable property" is indeed inadequate and, if so, whether the Court should disregard any of such inadequacy pursuant to its power under section 83(2)(b).
After stating that she had asked for an adjournment of an enforcement hearing scheduled for the next day Ms Maritz stated that she looked forward to hearing from the applicant's solicitors regarding the issues raised in the fax as a matter of urgency. The letter dated 12 May 2004 states:
I have referred to R v Liverpool Magistrates Court, ex p. Ansen which concerned the identically worded provisions in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. May J stated ([1998] 1 All ER 692, at p. 701) that the inclusion of gifts as realisable property caught by that Act:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.