Powered by Lexis+®
CASE STUDY

“What I spend on my yearly subscription, equals to a day's billable hours for me not to mention time efficiency and peace of mind.”

Jai Stern

Access all documents on Bankruptcy restrictions order

Bankruptcy restrictions order meaning

What does Bankruptcy restrictions order mean?
A bankruptcy restrictions order (BRO) is a court order that keeps key bankruptcy restrictions in place after discharge where the bankrupt’s conduct has been dishonest, reckless, or otherwise culpable. It continues prohibitions such as acting as a company director without court permission, obtaining credit above the statutory threshold without disclosure, and trading under a different name. Orders commonly last between two and fifteen years. The term is defined in statute across the UK and Ireland. In England and Wales, BROs arise under the Insolvency Act 1986 (as amended); applications are normally made by the Official Receiver and can be resolved by a bankruptcy restrictions undertaking (BRU). In Northern Ireland, BROs are provided for in the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (as amended), with similar procedures and BRUs. In Scotland (sequestration), BROs and BRUs are set out in the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016, with the Accountant in Bankruptcy initiating applications. In Ireland, comparable orders are made under the Bankruptcy Act 1988 on application by the Official Assignee. BROs are typically sought where conduct includes incurring debts with no reasonable prospect of repayment, gambling, failure to keep adequate records, or non‑cooperation with the trustee/official receiver. They serve a protective and deterrent function, with significant...
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

View the related News about Bankruptcy restrictions order

NEWS
Restructuring and Insolvency highlights: register of members voting rights, Part 26A plan debriefs, bankruptcy restrictions and passport orders, directors’ misfeasance, and BBL enforcement — 29 August 2024

Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—29 August 2024 In this issue: Corporate insolvency processes Restructuring Personal insolvency Directors and insolvency Daily and weekly news alerts Corporate Rescue and Insolvency (August 2024 edition) New Q&A Corporate insolvency processes Company’s register of members | Conclusive or not for voting rights? (Bland v Keegan) In proceedings relating to JDK Construction Ltd (JDK), the Court of Appeal examined a challenge to the lawfulness of a written resolution appointing joint liquidators, alongside allegations of an unauthorised share transfer form. The Appellant argued her shares in JDK were wrongfully transferred, rendering the liquidators’ appointment invalid. The key question was whether the company’s register of members—recording her shares as transferred—was determinative for validating the members’ resolution. Affirming the decision of His Honour Judge Hodge KC, the Court of Appeal held that the register stands as prima facie evidence of who the members are and of the validity of resolutions passed by them, unless...

Read More Right Arrow
NEWS
Non‑co‑operation and passport orders in insolvency: High Court extends restraint in ongoing bankruptcy but not liquidation, applying s 37 Supreme Court Act 1981 and Pugachev (England and Wales)

Umbrella Care Ltd (in liquidation) v Raja; Brittain and another v Raja (a bankrupt) [2024] EWHC 1973 (Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Insolvency practitioners, acting in varied capacities—here as liquidator of a collapsed company and as trustee in bankruptcy of the director who committed fraud on HMRC via that company—regularly encounter serious non-cooperation. Where the obstruction is acute and there is a genuine risk the respondent may abscond and not return, the court can: Order the respondent’s arrest Impose restrictions preventing departure from the jurisdiction Direct that the respondent’s passport be held by the applicant’s solicitors until issues are concluded This delivers a clear warning to those obliged to assist IPs and obey court orders—engage fully or risk losing the ability to travel overseas. However, the character and persistence of the non-cooperation are decisive. If there is no live court process that a passport order would genuinely support, this most stringent remedy is unlikely to be...

Read More Right Arrow
NEWS
Restructuring and Insolvency Weekly Highlights (11 July 2024): Enforcement Data, Sanctions Ruling, Foreign Judgment Winding-up, Northern Ireland Monetary Limits, Part 26A Security for Costs, Director Disqualification, Litigation Funding Priorities

Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—11 July 2024 In this issue: Key R&I law developments Sanctions Corporate insolvency processes Personal insolvency Restructuring Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation Daily and weekly news alerts New content Key R&I law developments Insolvency Service publishes June 2024 enforcement outcomes management information The Insolvency Service has refreshed its enforcement outcomes management information tables to include June 2024 data. The figures indicate 90 director disqualifications and 12 bankruptcy and debt relief restrictions arising from its enforcement activity. See: LNB News 09/07/2024 48. Sanctions Judgment Alert: Hellard v OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank (in liquidation) [2024] EWHC 1783 (Ch) The judgment in this matter has now been handed down. See: LNB News 10/07/2024 56. Corporate insolvency processes Petitions based on unrecognised/unregistered foreign judgment debts (Re a Company) The High Court has lately addressed two key questions concerning a winding-up petition anchored on foreign judgment debts that...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related Practice Notes about Bankruptcy restrictions order

PRACTICE NOTES
Bankruptcy Restrictions Orders: grounds, court approach, procedure, duration guidance, interim orders and key case law

Bankrupt's conduct In determining whether to impose a bankruptcy restrictions order (BRO), the court examines the bankrupt’s behaviour. This typically covers actions that resulted in their inability to meet debts, though the court may take into account any behaviour, occurring before or after the bankruptcy. For guidance on who may bring the application, and the timing and procedure, see Practice Note: Bankruptcy restrictions orders (BROs). Under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), a range of behaviours by the bankrupt is set out that the court may weigh when deciding whether a BRO is justified...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
Bankruptcy Restrictions Undertakings (BRUs) in England and Wales: legal framework, procedure, grounds, duration, effects, annulment, costs and register; relationship with BROs and interim BROs

A bankrupt is discharged from bankruptcy one year after the bankruptcy begins, unless the court suspends that discharge because the bankrupt has failed to co-operate with the official receiver (OR) or the trustee in bankruptcy (trustee) (IA 1986, s 279). On discharge, the disqualifications and restrictions that apply to an undischarged bankrupt come to an end. For further detail on those disqualifications and restrictions, see Practice Note: The immediate effects of a bankruptcy order on the bankrupt. What is the bankruptcy restrictions regime and why was it introduced? In cases where bankruptcy is not the product of honest misfortune, but arises from the bankrupt’s misconduct or recklessness, it is regarded as appropriate that the bankruptcy disqualifications and restrictions should continue for longer than one year, to protect the public interest and act as a deterrent. Accordingly, the Enterprise Act 2002 (EnA 2002) introduced a new section (IA 1986, s 281A) and a Schedule (IA 1986, Sch 4A) into the IA 1986, so that, from 1 April 2004, the...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
Undertakings in interim injunctions under CPR 25 (from 6 April 2025): drafting, applicant/respondent undertakings, variation/release, appeals and contempt (England and Wales)

This Practice Note considers undertakings in the context of interim injunctions This Practice Note explores undertakings within the setting of interim injunctions. For guidance on undertakings given other than in that context, see: Undertakings—overview concerning solicitors’ undertakings Practice Note: Undertakings (covenants) for contractual undertakings in a banking context Practice Note: Enforcement of undertakings which concerns enforcement of undertakings in a family law context Bankruptcy restrictions orders and undertakings—overview for bankruptcy undertakings It addresses interpretation and practical use of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court seised of your case, additional requirements may apply—see the court specific guidance below. For general material on interim injunctions, consult: Interim injunctions—the American Cyanamid guidelines Interim injunctions—on notice applications Interim injunctions—without notice applications Interim injunctions—drafting the order Unless otherwise indicated, the authorities and issues discussed chiefly concern undertakings associated with applications for a general interim injunction. The core principles, however, broadly extend...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related UK Parliament Acts about Bankruptcy restrictions order

UK PARLIAMENT ACTS
51 Power to appoint receiver

(1)     It is competent under the law of Scotland for the holder of a floating charge over all or any part of the property (including uncalled capital), which may from time to time be comprised in the property and undertaking of an incorporated company (whether [a company registered under the Companies Act 2006] or not)[—(a)     which the Court of Session has jurisdiction to wind up; or(b)     where paragraph (a) does not apply, in respect of which a court of a member state . . . has under the EU Regulation jurisdiction to open insolvency pr

UK PARLIAMENT ACTS
[SCHEDULE 4A Bankruptcy Restrictions Order and Undertaking]

(1)     A bankruptcy restrictions order may be made by the court.(2)     An order may be made only on the application of—(a)     the Secretary of State, or(b)     the official receiver acting on a direction of the Secretary of State.