Need some advice

mooandrah

Hi there wondering if we could ask for some advice. My OH and I are both bankrupt, undischarged,had our home repossessed in 2011 and due to shortfall and a failed business both declared ourselves bankrupt early this year. Had OR interviews all fine, no IPA for one of us other has to pay, fair enough. The OR rang regarding a claim which have been in the process of claiming since way back in 2008. A car accident, in which OH suffered a moderate back injury. This was all put on the forms prior to court, judgement has been made in favour of OH. Today we have been told this claim can no longer be pursued as it is a hybrid claim??? Just wanting a better understanding of why this would be as we had been lead to believe that although the OR may have some interest in the expenses, we would be able to claim for pain and suffering, and also the prognosis for OH pain etc... is anyone able to explain the technical stuff and if there is any hope for OH being able to have his injury sorted with the money for his pain etc.... Just wishing to understand better I have read the IS info on vested interest etc.. to be honset I am not sure I 100% understand this ! Thank you kindly for your help .:(

sniggings

who told you this? The OR or someone else?

Sorry can't help but I really can't see why he could not proceed with the claim? Interested to hear the answer to this.

mooandrah

Hi there thank you for the reply, it was the official recivers office who phoned and it was the person who conducted our interviews. Just struggling to undersatnd why we cannot claim for his personal injury, he may well have some long term health issues as a result and therefore we had hoped that he would be able to manage this and persue further treatment with the compensation. Thank you

PippaGirl_2

Any claim that pays out based on personal injury to yourself you can keep when BR, any pay out based on damage to property or for loss of earnings, the OR would be able to claim.

PippaGirl_2

Taken from the IS site

31.9.43 Current approach to actions which involve damage to both the bankrupt’s person and property – a ‘hybrid’ claim
It has been held that where a right of action involves damage to both the person and property of the bankrupt, there is only one cause of action, with different ‘heads’ of damage. The right cannot be split URL="http://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/freedomofinformation/technical/technicalmanual/ch25-36/chapter31/part9/part3/part%203%20notes.htm#12"][COLOR=#0066cc]note 12[/COLOR][/URL (see paragraph 31.9.44 for a limited exception to this principle).
This position was confirmed, and somewhat advanced upon, in a later case URL="http://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/freedomofinformation/technical/technicalmanual/ch25-36/chapter31/part9/part3/part%203%20notes.htm#13"][COLOR=#0066cc]note 13[/COLOR][/URL, where such an action (referred to in the judgment as a ‘hybrid’ claim) was held to be an action that would vest in a bankrupt’s estate, with any damages awarded for the personal element of the claim being held on a constructive trust (see paragraph 31.9.200) for the benefit of the bankrupt by his/her trustee.

PippaGirl_2

And more than clarifies

31.9.45 Summary of the position regarding hybrid claims
All rights of action arising before the date of a bankruptcy order which seek to recover property vest in the trustee whether or not they contain claims for damage that relate to ‘personal’ damages to which the bankrupt is entitled. Only a right of action that is solely personal (see paragraph 31.9.37) would not vest.
In this context, it is irrelevant if the ‘property’ element of the claim is the lesser part.

31.9.47 Getting the bankrupt’s advisors to agree to the position in a hybrid claim
Where the official receiver is dealing with a ‘hybrid’ claim he/she should, as a first step, write to the bankrupt’s advisors, setting out the position outlined in paragraphs 31.9.42 to 31.9.45, asking them to form a view on whether the claim vests in the trustee of the bankruptcy estate, or not. Ideally, the position should be agreed.
The official receiver may use the letter attached at Annex C to this chapter for this purpose.
It is likely that, having read the cases referred to in the letter, the advisors will form the view that the actions vests in him/her as trustee. If they do not, the matter should be referred to Technical Section.

Personally, I think Fermi could interpret this for us!

mooandrah

Hi thanks for the replies , I had read the IS info I don't understand why they are saying the claim has to cease and that he can no longer persue the litgation. Am I missing something? All the information we had before was that he would be able to keep the personal element. But it sounded to me liker she was saying the right to claim vested with the OR and they didn't want to pursue it so he couldn't!! Even though it has already been to court and they have ruled in his favour. I feel I want to better understand though before I go back to the OR to discuss. Thankyou.:mad:

mooandrah

Hi there is anyone able to interpret this for us? Thank you

Rylynn

I am just going to read it and see what I make of it.

RL

Okay sorry, I have no idea what that means, it is all a bit double dutch to me, I think one of the other more experienced board members such as fermi will be able to help you though. For me if the claim was in 2008 it is a shame it had not been already settled, and if your husband needs medical attention due to it I would ask why the claim is being denied if that is the right word.