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 court had no power to make such an order. The Official receiver had served his report, and there had been full compliance with Insolvency Rule 6.215, that the bankrupt was present and able to argue against the making of the bank interim order at the hearing.
Held: The court had to be satisfied that the grounds would, if unchallenged, have enabled the court to make an order under Section 279 (3). Since the court would be able to make a final order on an inter partes hearing, it also had a power to act on an interim basis. Once the bankrupt was discharged, the bankruptcy could not be revived. The appeal failed.
A court considering an application under section 279(3) may make an interim order suspending a bankrupts automatic discharge pending a full hearing of the Official Receiver’s application for such suspension.
Judges:
Michael Burton QC
Citations:
Times 16-Jun-1998, [1999] 1 WLR 619
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Clydesdale Bank plc v Davidson and Others (Scotland) Clydesdale Bank plc v Davidson and Others HL 16-Oct-1997
(Scotland) Joint pro indiviso proprietors of land were not able at law to create a binding lease in favour of one of their number, so as to defeat the proper claims of a third party. A person cannot enter into a contract with himself.
Held: . .
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 – Whittaker’s Trustee v Whittaker ScSf 1993
. .
Cited – American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd HL 5-Feb-1975
Interim Injunctions in Patents Cases
The plaintiffs brought proceedings for infringement of their patent. The proceedings were defended. The plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendants infringing their patent, but they now appealed its discharge by the Court of . .
Cited by:
Cited – Bagnall QC v the Official Receiver ChD 18-Jun-2003
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insolvency
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.82465
