Introduction

It will be a familiar scenario to many practitioners: a bankrupt claims that there is a pre-existing agreement which has the effect that a property asset falls outside the bankruptcy estate. Where an agreement is said to have been reached informally, it can be costly and time-consuming to untangle the facts and reach a defensible conclusion.

Two recent High Court decisions provide a helpful reminder that the insolvency courts are reluctant to recognise alleged pre-bankruptcy transfers of property unless there is clear and formal evidence of a binding agreement. This reflects a cautious, creditor-focused approach, particularly where parties rely on informal arrangements and retrospective assertions to claim that ownership shifted prior to bankruptcy. The decisions in Reid‑Roberts v Mei‑Lin and Bhattacharya v Armstrong illustrate this trend in situations where the relevant parties were seeking to assert beneficial ownership in properties which they asserted fell outside the bankruptcy estate.

The Cases

In Reid‑Roberts & Anor v Mei‑Lin & Anor [2026] EWHC 49 (Ch), the court considered, on appeal, whether a bankrupt had transferred his beneficial interest in a property to his former spouse before the bankruptcy. The alleged transfer was said to arise from prior WhatsApp and email communications between the parties.

The court rejected this argument, holding that no transfer occurred and that the beneficial interest in the property remained vested in the bankrupt’s estate. While acknowledging that informal communications such as WhatsApp messages could, in principle, evidence an intention to transfer in some cases, the court emphasised that their informality typically weighs against finding a concluded agreement, particularly in relation to a valuable property asset.

The two key points from the judgment are that:

• • The court will closely scrutinise whether there was a genuine intention to effect an immediate transfer, rather than a future arrangement or an indication that such a transfer might take place at a later date; and

• • Even where agreement is alleged, the court will consider whether legal formalities (including the requirement under section 53 of the Law of Property Act 1925 for transfers of interests in land and equitable interests to be properly evidenced in writing and signed) have in substance been satisfied, including a clear intention to authenticate the arrangement.

On the facts, the communications fell short of this threshold.

A similar approach was taken in Bhattacharya & Anor v Robert Armstrong & Anor [2026] EWHC 759 (Ch). In this case, the trustees in bankruptcy had already obtained a declaration from the court that they were legally and beneficially entitled to a property, but later family members sought to challenge this, claiming beneficial interests.

The court focussed on whether the applicants had a real prospect of success of establishing any variety or degree of proprietary interest in the property, examining carefully the evidential basis of their claims. In doing so, the court refused to accept the assertions of alternative ownership in the absence of clear and persuasive evidence. The application was also found to be an abuse of process; the court held that the applicants had known about the prior proceedings and had done nothing then to try to join the proceedings and prove their alleged interests. The application failed.

The key points from the judgment are that:

• Late claims to beneficial ownership are likely to face an uphill struggle with the court;
• Courts will be reluctant to revisit determinations of ownership without compelling evidence (including documentary evidence) being advanced by the applicants; and
• Parties must forward their evidence at the earliest possible stage and should not sit on their rights when ongoing relevant proceedings are ongoing, in the hope that they may be able to take action at a later stage.

Conclusion

These decisions illustrate a consistent and rigorous judicial approach. Insolvency courts will not lightly accept that a transfer of property has taken place, particularly where the interests of creditors are engaged. Informal communications, unparticularised or vague assertions, or poorly evidenced arrangements are unlikely to suffice.  Informality and ambiguity will be interpreted against the party asserting the transfer and, where ownership is uncertain, the court will prefer outcomes that protect the interests of creditors.

In practical terms, parties seeking to rely on pre-bankruptcy transfers must be able to clearly demonstrate that a binding agreement was reached, with identifiable terms and an intention for the transfer to take immediate effect. Absent of such evidence, the court is likely to treat the property as part of the bankruptcy estate.