The Official Receiver v Bathurst [2008] EWHC 2572 (Ch) (04 June 2008)

The Official Receiver v Bathurst [2008] EWHC 2572 (Ch) (04 June 2008)

The conduct of Mr. Bathurst in granting a charge after the presentation of the bankruptcy petition, though not a voidable preference under section 340, was still relevant and sufficiently serious under paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 4A to justify a nine-year bankruptcy restrictions order; the legal mistake regarding the nature of the preference did not alter the outcome.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 2572 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: The Official Receiver; Defendant/respondent: William Arthur Bathurst
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Appeal / Post Judgment Review Following Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal remains allowed; original order for nine-year bankruptcy restrictions stands.
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy Restrictions Order, Void and Voidable Preferences, Review of Judgment, Conduct of Bankrupt
Insolvency Bankruptcy Bankruptcy Restrictions Order Void and Voidable Preferences Review of Judgment Conduct of Bankrupt

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Official Receiver

Claimant/appellant

William Arthur Bathurst

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Appeal / Post Judgment Review Following Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grant of a charge after presentation of a bankruptcy petition constitutes a voidable preference under section 340 of the Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the bankrupt in granting a void charge should affect the period of a bankruptcy restrictions order
  3. 3 Whether the court should review and alter its previous order in light of a legal mistake

Ratio Decidendi

The conduct of Mr. Bathurst in granting a charge after the presentation of the bankruptcy petition, though not a voidable preference under section 340, was still relevant and sufficiently serious under paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 4A to justify a nine-year bankruptcy restrictions order; the legal mistake regarding the nature of the preference did not alter the outcome.

Court Disposition

Appeal remains allowed; original order for nine-year bankruptcy restrictions stands.

Orders

  • Bankruptcy restrictions order to subsist for nine years.
  • No order as to costs.