Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd [2011] UKSC 38, [2012] 1 All ER 505, [2012] 1 AC 383 (27 July 2011) is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the general principle that parties cannot contract out of the insolvency legislation. The principle has two key aspects, of which the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled that only the first was relevant on the facts of the case:
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd [2011] UKSC 38, [2012] 1 All ER 505, [2012] 1 AC 383 (27 July 2011) is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the general principle that parties cannot contract out of the insolvency legislation. The principle has two key aspects, of which the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled that only the first was relevant on the facts of the case: (en)
|
foaf:depiction
| |
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
thumbnail
| |
Prior
| - , dismissing appeals from and (en)
|
ArgueDate
| |
bot
| |
court
| |
date
| |
DecideDate
| |
fix-attempted
| |
fullname
| - Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (en)
|
Holding
| - LBSF's appeal dismissed; the validity of the contractual provisions was upheld (en)
|
Litigants
| - Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd & Anor (en)
|
majority
| |
has abstract
| - Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd [2011] UKSC 38, [2012] 1 All ER 505, [2012] 1 AC 383 (27 July 2011) is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the general principle that parties cannot contract out of the insolvency legislation. The principle has two key aspects, of which the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled that only the first was relevant on the facts of the case: 1.
* The anti-deprivation rule, which is aimed at attempts to withdraw an asset on bankruptcy or liquidation or administration, thereby reducing the value of the insolvent estate to the detriment of creditors. 2.
* The pari passu rule, which reflects the principle that statutory provisions for pro rata distribution may not be excluded by a contract which gives one creditor more than its proper share. (en)
|
Area of Law
| |
Distinguished previous case
| - British Eagle International Airlines Ltd v Compagnie Nationale Air France [1975] 1 WLR 758 (en)
|
Neutral Citation
| |
Other Citations
| - [2012] 1 AC 383 (en)
- [2012] 1 All ER 505 (en)
|
gold:hypernym
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is Wikipage redirect
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |