Hickling v Baker: CA 4 Apr 2007

The defendant, an undischarged bankrupt, appealed an order made for his committal to prison after failing to co-operate with his trustee.
Held: The discharge of the bankruptcy had been extended already because of the defendant’s failure to co-operate. The defendant had not been given notice of the application for his committal. Section 364 was not incompatible with the defendant’s human rights but an application had to be made on notice save where justified on the evidence. Even then, he should be brought directly before the court where he should be allowed to make representations. It was inappropriate to place the duty on the defendant to apply for his discharge from the committal.

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Rix LJ, LLoyd LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 287, Times 19-Apr-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 364

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insolvency, Human Rights

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.250986