Turning cogs and wheels.

RESTRUCTURING AND INSOLVENCY

Trustee in bankruptcy’s application for possession and sale of property: get the procedure wrong at your peril!

Procedure does matter when making an application for possession and sale of a bankrupt’s property. Making the application using the wrong procedure is a problem. Case law has confirmed that the correct route is to make an insolvency application under the Insolvency Act 1986 (related rules), not Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules (as some less experienced lawyers mistakenly believe).

A trustee in bankruptcy may make an application under section 335A and 363 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (and associated provisions in the Trustees of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996) for the possession and sale of a bankrupt’s property. Where the property falls within sec. 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “use it or lose it” rule) that an application should be made within three years of bankruptcy, or else the trustee in bankruptcy’s interest in the property will return to the bankrupt.

Previously, there was confusion over what form such an application may take; whether it should be under Rule 1.35 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 or under Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).  This has recently been clarified in the case of Gostelow and another v Hussain and others [2021] EWHC 3276 (Ch) which confirmed that applications should properly be made under Rule 1.35 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016.

So – what happens if the wrong procedure is used? A judge will usually have the power to correct an error of procedure under their inherent case management powers (CPR Part 3.10).  In practical terms this means that the issue will be flagged at the case management stage and an order may be made that the proceedings should continue subject to the error being corrected.

However, the position is not entirely clear when it comes to applications where limitation under has expired (i.e. the “use it or lose it” rule has passed).  Such applications are often made up against that three-year deadline and, if those proceedings are dismissed because the incorrect procedure was used, the trustee could find themselves out of time; but if a judge allows the proceedings to continue subject to the error being corrected this potentially deprives the bankrupt (or their spouse / former spouse) of a legitimate limitation defence. The judge in the Gostelow case declined to comment on this scenario as it was not relevant to the facts of the case in question.

This leaves a real question unanswered, and a real risk for trustees in bankruptcy if they (or their lawyers) use the wrong application when up against the ‘use it or lose it’ deadline. In a worst case scenario, the trustee could find themselves having lost their interest in the property, and having to explain that loss to creditors (if not facing claims from them for the loss of it).  Furthermore, even if the court uses its case management powers to correct the procedural error, there is a real risk that the trustee may be penalised in costs for using the incorrect procedure.

So – how do you prevent that risk?  Put simply, you use expert insolvency lawyers.  The temptation is often for trustees to view bankruptcy possession proceedings as simple, and as currency to give work back to non-specialist insolvency lawyers who give them referrals.  Bankruptcy possession applications are far from simple – getting them wrong can have serious consequences.

We have a strong expert restructuring & insolvency team here, including a specialist in acting for trustees in bankruptcy.  If you require practical advice, please contact us.

Stay connected, sign up for updates

Stay connected

Recent articles

Insights

New subscription rules are coming: is your business ready?

Our commercial business lawyers highlight the steps you can take now to prepare for subscription rule changes coming in January 2027.

01/09/2026

Podcasts

Neurodivergence in children

In this episode of Family Law in the UK we explore the impact of neurodivergence in children, and how the court system address their needs.

26/08/2026

Insights

AIM reforms create a simpler route to London for Australian resources companies

The London Stock Exchange’s August 2026 reforms to the AIM Rules could make AIM materially more attractive to Australian mining and resources companies...

25/08/2026

Insights

AI in Dispute Resolution: the SME wake-up call

Artificial intelligence is reshaping how commercial disputes are conducted, how much they cost, and how fast they develop. Dispute resolution must become part of your core business strategy – starting now.

19/08/2026

DISCLAIMER:

THIS INFORMATION IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES AND IS NOT INTENDED TO AMOUNT TO LEGAL ADVICE ON WHICH RELIANCE SHOULD BE PLACED. WE, DMH STALLARD LLP, DISCLAIM ALL LIABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY ARISING FROM ANY RELIANCE PLACED ON THIS INFORMATION. ANY RELIANCE ON THIS INFORMATION IS SOLELY AT YOUR RISK. The provision of this information does not create a business or professional services relationship. This information is not exhaustive and does not attempt to address every issue relevant to a particular situation. If you require advice on a specific legal issue, please contact a lawyer listed on our website, dmhstallard.com, or send an email to [email protected].