Andrew Brown successfully appeared in Fletcher & MacPherson v Desai [2026] EWHC 728 (Ch) on behalf of Ashleigh Fletcher and Wayne MacPherson as trustees of bankruptcy in respect to a challenge under s.375 Insolvency Act against their earlier trial victory for an order under s.339 Insolvency Act 1986 of a sham trust and transaction at an undervalue. Andrew was instructed by Tom Paton and Hannah Lambert of Irwin Mitchell.

On 27 March 2026, ICCJ Angelo KC handed down judgment in which she dismissed a creditors application under s.375 to vary a trial order in such a fashion that the creditor might become a secured creditor.

In summary, in 2016 the bankrupt transferred two properties (‘the Properties’) to his wife shortly before various judgments were entered against him in favour of Mrs Vibhutiben Desai (‘Mrs Desai’). Mrs Desai subsequently sought and obtained various charging orders against the bankrupt’s interest despite the TR1s and transfers of the Properties being registered at HMLR, and also obtained a freezing order in respect to the Properties. Mrs Desai subsequently petitioned for the bankruptcy order in 2019 (not disclosing any security), which was made in February 2020. She then issued a private s.423 claim without permission seeking sale of the properties and all sale proceeds to herself, and applied to commit the Trustees to prison for allegedly breaching the freezing injunction when they sought joinder to her s.423 claim. She further filed a proof of debt not mentioning the charging orders. The Trustees subsequently issued a claim alleging an underlying deed of trust dated 2011 was a sham and/or a s.423 undervalue, and that the subsequent transfer of the Properties to the bankrupt’s wife in 2016 was a TUV under s.339. Andrew Brown was successful at trial in July 2024 on this claim, the order from which vested the Properties in the Trustees. Mrs Desai then applied to vary the order under s.375 on grounds that (1) the vesting took effect retrospectively, and/or (2) that the order should have regularised her secured status in order to ‘restore the position to what it should have been.’

ICCJ Agnello KC heard the application on 13 March 2026 for a full-day, but in the judgment dismissed the application as:

(1) per the Court of Appeal in Stonham v Ramrattan, any vesting order under s.342 takes effect from the date of the order.

(2) S.339(2) does not allow an unsecured creditor to jump the queue and become a secured creditor at the expense of the other creditors, but must operate within the ambit of the fundamental rule of pari passu status amongst unsecured creditors.”

Read the full judgment here.