The remuneration taboo: Yearwood-Grazette and Freeburn

John Tribe, Stephen Hunt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

This article 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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)139-142
JournalInsolvency Intelligence
Volume23
Issue number9
Publication statusPublished - 2010
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Note: 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.

Keywords

  • Law

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The remuneration taboo: Yearwood-Grazette and Freeburn'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this