A person required to answer questions under the section may not refuse to answer on the ground of self-incrimination. (Dillon LJ) ‘It is plain to my mind – and not least from the Cork Report – that part of the mischief in the old law before the Insolvency Act 1985 was the apparent inability of the law to deal adequately with dishonesty or malpractice on the part of bankrupts or company directors . . That was a matter of public concern, and there is a public interest in putting it right. As steps to that end, Parliament has, by [the Insolvency Act 1986], greatly extended the investigative powers available to office-holders, with the assistance of the court, and has expressly placed the officers of the company and others listed in section 235(3), under a duty to assist the office-holder’. As to the Bishopsgate and Riley cases: ‘The essence of both decisions is that if Parliament, in the public interest, sets up by statute special investigatory procedures to find out if the affairs of a company have been conducted fraudulently, with the possibility of special remedies in the light of an inspector’s report, or to find out if there have been infringements of certain sections of the Banking Act 1987 which have been enacted for the protection of members of the public who make deposits, Parliament cannot have intended that anyone questioned under those procedures should be entitled to rely on the privilege against self-incrimination, since that would stultify the procedures and prevent them achieving their obvious purpose.’
Judges:
Dillon LJ
Citations:
[1999] Ch 1
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bank of England v Riley 1992
Exercise of the right of privilege against self-incrimination. . .
Cited – In Re London United Investments Plc CA 1992
The privilege against self-incrimination was impliedly excluded by the terms of a statute which conferred power on company inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State to require documents and answers to questions from any person whom they . .
Cited by:
Cited – Official Receiver v Wadge Rapps and Hunt (a firm) and another and two other actions HL 31-Jul-2003
(Orse In re Pantmaenog Timber Co Ltd)
The Receiver sought to use information obtained under section 236 (documents recovered from the directors’ solicitors) in disqualification proceedings.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The Act had . .
Cited – Regina v Hertfordshire County Council, ex parte Green Environmental Industries Ltd and Another HL 17-Feb-2000
A notice was given to the holder of a waste disposal licence to require certain information to be provided on pain of prosecution. The provision of such information could also then be evidence against the provider of the commission of a criminal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insolvency
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.186360