← All Authorities
United Kingdom Leading Case transactions at undervalueliquidation voluntary and compulsory

Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd

[2011] UKSC 38
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtUK Supreme Court
Year2011
StatusBinding authority

Summary

The anti-deprivation principle prohibits contractual arrangements designed predominantly to deprive creditors on insolvency, but commercially sensible bona fide arrangements are valid.

Key Principle

The anti-deprivation principle prevents a contract from providing that property leaves the estate of a bankrupt automatically on insolvency; but commercially sensible arrangements that do not have the predominant purpose of depriving creditors are valid.

Area of Law

insolvency

Related Cases

Stubbings v Jams 2 International Pty Ltd (2022) 399 ALR 409

In unfair preference claims, payments and supplies within a continuing business relationship are assessed as a whole under the running account principle, not individually.

Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd (2022) 276 CLR 233

HCA held that a creditor's statutory demand under s.459E Corporations Act cannot be set aside merely because the company disputes the debt; a genuine dispute on substantial grounds must be shown.

Vince v ASIC [2021] FCAFC 69

Director disqualification upheld where director failed to maintain adequate books and records, constituting misconduct in management of insolvent company.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Belmont Park Investments Pty L...