The bankrupt was to receive his automatic discharge. The receiver had applied ex parte to suspend the automatic discharge. The bankrupt appealed.
Held: The court had power to make such an order. The court had seen strong prima facie evidence that the bankrupt had failed in his obligation to co-operate with the receiver. The failure of the receiver yet to comply with the rules did not prevent the court making an order ex parte.
Judges:
The Hon Mr Justice Evans-Lombe
Citations:
Times 08-Jul-2003, Gazette 04-Sep-2003, [2003] EWHC 1398 (Ch)
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Jacobs v Official Receiver; In re Jacobs (a bankrupt) ChD 3-Apr-1998
The bankrupt was due to have his automatic discharge, but the Official Receiver applied on the day before for the discharge for an interim suspension of the discharge to allow consideration of his alleged lack of co-operation. The bankrupt said the . .
Cited – Hardy v Focus Insurance Co (In Liquidation) ChD 19-Jul-1996
The Court has no power to direct the Official Receiver as to suspension of bankruptcy. . .
Cited – In re First Express Ltd ChD 1991
A liquidator applied to discharge an order that had been made against him ex parte under section 234 requiring him to hand over books and records of the company in his possession to administrative receivers.
Held: Hoffman J said: ‘It was wrong . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Bagnall QC v Official Receiver CA 1-Dec-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insolvency
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.183702