Ball v Jones: The Final Word on Hill v Haines?

Gareth Schofield Partner Clarke Willmott

This article considers the case Re Jones (A bankrupt); Ball v Jones [2008] 2 FLR 1969 (Ball v Jones) and its importance to family lawyers in clarifying the principles set out in Haines v Hill and Another [2007] EWCA Civ 1284 [2008] 1 FLR 1192 in the Court of Appeal. It highlights the fact that the practitioner must consider carefully and advise their clients effectively as to how the possibility of bankruptcy will affect their client's possible claims and settlement and must be prepared to respond swiftly as circumstances change.

The case Burke v Chubb [2008] EWHC 341 (QB) [2008] 2 FLR 1207 is a salutary reminder of the possibility of negligence if that advice is not given particularly when the other spouse is prepared to co-operate and proactive steps taken to follow it. That advice needs to include consideration of whether it is possible to preserve assets for the family rather than the bankrupt's creditors in a situation where the bankruptcy has not yet occurred. The non-bankrupt client will also want to know if they are protected from a...

Read the full article here.