Dr Tanal Mohamed Sabbah v Barbel Christa Abela

For bankruptcy jurisdiction, whether a debtor has a place of residence in England and Wales is a fact-sensitive question of fact and degree. The court must assess all the evidence cumulatively, recognising that a debtor may have more than one residence. A residence is a de facto situation and need not be a home, be occupied exclusively, or be occupied throughout the relevant period. Intention to abandon premises is relevant but not conclusive. The court may draw adverse inferences where relevant documents are not disclosed. A debt is not substantially disputed where vague evidence of an oral assurance is inconsistent with clear contemporaneous documents.

A creditor presented a bankruptcy petition based on a personal guarantee for up to US$7 million. The debtor opposed the petition, alleging that the debt was substantially disputed because the creditor had represented that the guarantee would not be enforced. She also challenged jurisdiction under section 265(2)(b)(i) of the Insolvency Act 1986, asserting that she had abandoned her London residence in August 2019.

The court considered the debtor’s oral and documentary evidence, including her failure to comply fully with disclosure orders, and determined both the substantial-dispute and residence issues.

1. Disputed debt. The debtor failed to establish a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds. Her account of an oral representation that the guarantee was merely formal was vague and inconsistent with the guarantee’s warning and a contemporaneous letter confirming that she had received legal advice and understood the consequences. Her lack of recollection did not displace that documentary evidence.
2. Place of residence. The test under section 265(2)(b)(i) of the Insolvency Act 1986 is a mixed question of fact and law, or fact and degree, requiring a multifactorial assessment of all the evidence cumulatively. The petitioner bears the burden of proof.
3. A place of residence is a de facto situation rather than a legal right. A debtor may have multiple residences. Exclusive use, actual occupation throughout the relevant period, or characterisation of the premises as a home is unnecessary. A licence or moral claim may suffice.
4. Intention concerning the premises is relevant to abandonment but is not conclusive. The London Properties remained furnished, contained the debtor’s possessions, remained available for her use, were used as her address, and were where she stayed when in London. The evidence showed removal in January or February 2020, not abandonment in August 2019.
5. The debtor’s deficient disclosure justified adverse inferences. The court inferred that missing documents concerning travel, use of the properties and removal of possessions would have supported continued use of the properties as a residence.
6. The debtor retained a place of residence in England and Wales on 13 September 2019, three years before presentation of the petition. Her objections failed.