Tribe, John and Hunt, Stephen (2010) The remuneration taboo: Yearwood-Grazette and Freeburn. Insolvency Intelligence, 23(9), pp. 139-142. ISSN (print) 0950-2645Full text not available from this archive.
This article critically evaluates Proudman, J’s recent decision in Hunt v. Yearwood-Grazette  and Mr Registrar Jaques’ recent judgment in Freeburn v Hunt . These personal insolvency cases revolve around the remuneration of a Trustee in Bankruptcy. During the course of her judgment Proudman, J makes reference to, inter alia, the 2004 Practice Statement on Officeholder Remuneration. These cases constitute one of the few occasions when the Practice Statement has been examined at High Court level. Proudman, J’s comments in Yearwood-Grazette and use of the Practice Statement, and some industry based critical evaluation of the Practice Statement are examined. In Freeburn, Mr Registrar Jaques more detailed consideration of what constitutes a proportionate amount of information that an IP should submit in support of his remuneration is considered.
|Additional Information:||Cited as an "illuminating piece" in: Sealy, L & Milman, D (Eds). Sealy & Milman: Annotated Guide to the Insolvency Legislation. 14th Edition, Volumes 2, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, London, at page 1065.|
Accounting and finance
|Faculty, School or Research Centre:||Faculty of Business and Law
Faculty of Business and Law > Centre for Insolvency Law and Policy
Faculty of Business and Law > Kingston Law School
|Depositing User:||John Tribe|
|Date Deposited:||12 Oct 2010 14:38|
|Last Modified:||18 Oct 2013 15:27|
Actions (Repository Editors)
|Item Control Page|