The Remuneration Taboo: Yearwood-Grazette and Freeburn

Insolvency Intelligence, Forthcoming

15 Pages Posted: 15 Aug 2010

See all articles by Stephen Hunt

Stephen Hunt

Griffins Insolvency Litigation Forensics

John Paul Tribe

University of Liverpool

Date Written: August 13, 2010

Abstract

This case note critically evaluates Proudman, J’s recent decision in Hunt v. Yearwood-Grazette [2009] and Mr Registrar Jaques’ recent judgment in Freeburn v Hunt [2010]. 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.

Suggested Citation

Hunt, Stephen and Tribe, John Paul, The Remuneration Taboo: Yearwood-Grazette and Freeburn (August 13, 2010). Insolvency Intelligence, Forthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1658565

Stephen Hunt

Griffins Insolvency Litigation Forensics ( email )

Tavistock House South
Tavistock Square
London, WC1H 9LG
United Kingdom
02075549600 (Phone)
02075549666 (Fax)

HOME PAGE: http://www.griffins.net

John Paul Tribe (Contact Author)

University of Liverpool ( email )

Brownlow Hill
Liverpool, L69 3BX
United Kingdom

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
251
Abstract Views
1,550
Rank
223,368
PlumX Metrics