Canty & Anor v Boyden

Canty & Anor v Boyden

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant had been given ample opportunity to present his case, failed to comply with court directions, and the decisions of the lower courts and the trustee were reasonable and lawful. There was no procedural unfairness or error of law justifying interference with the order for possession.

Parties
Appellant/respondent: Richard John Canty; Respondent/appellant/trustee in Bankruptcy: Patrick Michael Boyden
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy, Possession Orders, Trustee Powers, Appeal Procedure
Insolvency Property Law Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Possession Orders Trustee Powers Appeal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard John Canty

Appellant/respondent

Patrick Michael Boyden

Respondent/appellant/trustee in Bankruptcy

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order for possession of the appellant's property by the trustee in bankruptcy was lawful and justified
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was denied a fair opportunity to present his case on 9 June 2005
  3. 3 Whether the trustee's refusal to pursue further claims for costs and mesne profits was reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant had been given ample opportunity to present his case, failed to comply with court directions, and the decisions of the lower courts and the trustee were reasonable and lawful. There was no procedural unfairness or error of law justifying interference with the order for possession.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order for possession of the property to the trustee affirmed
  • Appellant and any occupants to deliver up possession by specified date