The six major non-corporate cases of 'Bankruptcy tourism' in the UK

 1.  Skjevesland v Geveran Trading Co Ltd (No.4) [2002] EWHC 2898 (Ch)

The case was about a Swiss banker, (1) who had ordinary residence in the UK, because he resided there for 92 days a year;(2) he had a flat in London to satisfy the fact that he had a place of residence in the UK; (3)however, his 90% of the economic interests were in Switzerland. It was held that his ‘Centre of main interest’ (COMI) is outside EU, and the Regulation was not applicable.

2. Staubitz-Schreiber, Re (C-1/04) [2006] ECR I-701

It was upheld by the European Court of Justice that the COMI to be determined at the time when the debtor lodges a petition for insolvency proceedings and not after that. Therefore, once jurisdiction is established, it is unlikely for a debtors to change COMI. 

3. Stojevic v Official Receiver [2007] BPIR 141

It was held that the principle COMI of a natural person is the place where he has his habitual residence. An indirect economic interest of the debtor to work in a company situated in the UK and which is not owned by him. [For sure] it does not equal to his own interest and therefore, the order made by the English Court ceases to has any effect and it stands annulled.

4. Official Receiver v Eichler  [2007] BPIR 1636

A German debtor moved to England and petitioned for bankruptcy, which was ordered accordingly. Subsequently, his petition was challenged. It was held by the Court that at the time the petition was lodged, the COMI of debtor was in England. In addition to that, at the time the proceeding initiated, the debtor was habitually a resident of England. Therefore, it has nothing to do with the fact that his last habitual residence was Germany and the debts incurred on him belong to Germany.

5. Official Receiver v Mitterfellner [2009] BPIR 1075 

An earlier order obtained for bankruptcy petition was re-examined on the ground that the debtor was not habitually resident in England at the time the petition was made. Because, short visits to England with mala-fide intentions to secure bankruptcy with light regime [means the English law]; and providing wrong information in the petition, both,  do not make any person habitual resident of the UK. Thus, the order was annulled.

6. Hagemeister, Re [2010] BPIR 1093

The English Courts are reluctant to bare a debtor whose intention is to abuse their system[the English legal system]. In the case, some misleading information were supplied by the debtor at the time the bankruptcy petition was filed. It was also acknowledged that an insolvency proceedings had already been initiated in German Court, with respect to the same case. As of consequences, the English court took U-turn and annulled the order which was made earlier.