Hickling v Baker [2007] EWCA Civ 287 (04 April 2007)

Hickling v Baker [2007] EWCA Civ 287 (04 April 2007)

The appeal against the committal order was allowed because the evidence did not justify proceeding without notice, and the order failed to require that the arrested person be brought promptly before the court for a hearing with both parties present, as required by Article 5 ECHR and principles of fairness.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 287
Parties
Applicant Below; Respondent to Appeal: Neil Francis Hickling; Respondent Below; Appellant: Timothy Darren Baker
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) Orders of Committal and Non Disclosure
Outcome
Appeal allowed; committal order discharged; appellant released from custody.
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy Enforcement, Committal Orders, Article 5 ECHR (right to Liberty), Without Notice Applications, Disclosure of Evidence, Proportionality in Deprivation of Liberty
Insolvency Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Enforcement Committal Orders Article 5 ECHR (right to Liberty) Without Notice Applications Disclosure of Evidence +1 more

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neil Francis Hickling

Applicant Below; Respondent to Appeal

Timothy Darren Baker

Respondent Below; Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) Orders of Committal and Non Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a committal order under section 364 Insolvency Act 1986 can be made without notice and on undisclosed evidence
  2. 2 Whether such an order is compatible with Article 5 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the order must provide for the arrested person to be brought promptly before the court

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal against the committal order was allowed because the evidence did not justify proceeding without notice, and the order failed to require that the arrested person be brought promptly before the court for a hearing with both parties present, as required by Article 5 ECHR and principles of fairness.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Mr Baker to be released from custody.
  • Order under section 366 for Mr Baker to attend further examination before a judge.