(2) The dictionary definition and the examples of the uses of the word ‘realise’ in the Act tended to support a definition of ‘converted into cash’.
(3) The scheme of s 283A of the Act was as follows: (i) The section only applied to that part of the bankrupt’s estate comprised in his or his spouse/civil partner’s or former spouse/civil partner’s dwelling-house. It did not apply to other property. (ii) The trustee had 3 years to decide what to do where the estate had such an interest. (iii) If he did nothing, then, subject to the provisions of s 283A(6) of the Act, the estate lost the property interest. (iv) If the interest were of low value (within the meaning of the Act) the trustee, while technically owning the interest, would in practice have no enforcement mechanism available to him. If he did nothing, the interest reverted to the bankrupt under s 283A of the Act. If he started proceedings (whether for an order for sale or a charging order), that would technically keep his interest alive while the proceedings were pending but, under s 283A(4) of the Act the interest would revest when the proceedings were dismissed. (v) If the interest was of significant value, the trustee could (a) apply for an order for sale (giving the co-owner the opportunity to buy the trustee out at the then value, alternatively the property would be ordered to be sold and the trustee would recover the then value); (b) apply for a charging order (securing
 BPIR 820 at 821
the then value to the trustee, with future increases going to the bankrupt); (c) reach an agreement with the bankrupt, in effect selling to the bankrupt (recovering the then value for the trustee and securing future increases for the bankrupt); (d) sell the interest to someone other than the bankrupt or the civil partner/spouse at a price payable and paid on sale (securing the then value, with future increases accruing to the purchaser); or (e) agree with the co-owner to sell (recovering for the trustee the then value).
(4) ‘Realise’ in s 283A(3)(a) of the Act did not include effecting a sale for future cash consideration, at the stage before that cash was got in. Re A Debtor (No 29 of 1986) and Re Byford (Deceased), Byford v Butler  EWHC 1267 (Ch) considered.
(5) The reasoning of the judge failed to distinguish between the concepts of sale and realisation, and the differing significance of the powers of a trustee in bankruptcy and the limits placed on the exercise of those powers, and was thereby flawed.
(6) By the assignment, not all the cash to be obtained from the transaction was got in within 3 years. The sale from the trustees to M was not therefore within s 283A(3)(a) of the Act. L’s interest in the property had reverted to him and M no longer had any interest in it.”