Comments on: Tenant 1 – 0 Receiver

By: anon

anon — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:28:00 +0000

its easily accessible on the internet and isnt exactly being kept a secret,

[edited by NL - others may not have caught up with the High Court's desire to anonymise it, but we have. Which bit of J's polite request not to do that again escaped you?]

By: anon

anon — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:20:14 +0000

[Edited by J] – Anon, if the High Court wants the judgment anonymised, then this website isn’t going to disagree. Please don’t do that again.

By: chief

chief — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:56:14 +0000

This is one of the problems with BAILII, I’ve got caught out with it before. At least they go back and anonymise judgments though. One of the main paid for databases (I’ll leave you to work out which one) still carries a transcript of a case from the first half of 2008 that clearly identifies the claimants in a quite horrendous factual situation, where their name has been anonymised in the case title and everywhere else that carries the transcript. I’m sure there are other instances, but that seems particularly bad.

By: J

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:14:36 +0000

Amended. Thanks.

By: CMetcalfe

CMetcalfe — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:02:40 +0000

Hi there.
Just a quick note. I think the judge ordered that the case should be anonymised to avoid mention to [the full name of the person known only as N in the judgment]
This is how the case appears on Bailli http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/2884.html

By: simply wondered

simply wondered — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:46:01 +0000

presumably because it is a disposal of a right in land not for value – or indeed money or money’s worth? (love that phrase!)

By: Francis Davey

Francis Davey — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:48:34 +0000

Ah, nice try.

Your grant of a lease to your brother would almost certainly be a “gift” within the meaning of s.74(1) which means that it is also realisable property and is caught by the enforcement powers, for example in s.80(6).

They saw you coming.