Hickling v Baker

Hickling v Baker

The committal order was unlawful because the evidence did not justify proceeding without notice and the order failed to require that the bankrupt be brought promptly before the court after arrest. Compliance with Article 5 ECHR requires both justification for without notice applications and prompt judicial review of detention.

Parties
Respondent (trustee in Bankruptcy): Neil Francis Hickling; Appellant (bankrupt): Timothy Darren Baker
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (bankruptcy) / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; committal order discharged; appellant released from custody.
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy, Committal for Non Cooperation, Without Notice Applications, Article 5 ECHR, Disclosure of Evidence
Insolvency Law Human Rights Law Bankruptcy Committal for Non Cooperation Without Notice Applications Article 5 ECHR Disclosure of Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neil Francis Hickling

Respondent (trustee in Bankruptcy)

Timothy Darren Baker

Appellant (bankrupt)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (bankruptcy) / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether committal under section 364 of the Insolvency Act 1986 without notice and based on undisclosed evidence is lawful and compatible with Article 5 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the order should have provided for the bankrupt to be brought promptly before the court after arrest
  3. 3 Whether evidence can be withheld from the respondent in committal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The committal order was unlawful because the evidence did not justify proceeding without notice and the order failed to require that the bankrupt be brought promptly before the court after arrest. Compliance with Article 5 ECHR requires both justification for without notice applications and prompt judicial review of detention.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; committal order discharged; appellant released from custody.

Orders

  • Mr Baker to be released from custody forthwith.
  • Mr Baker to attend for further examination before a judge under section 366 Insolvency Act 1986.