Lau v Cowley & Anor

Lau v Cowley & Anor

The court has power under Schedule 2 to the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, read with CPR rule 6.15(2), to retrospectively validate service of a recognition application outside the jurisdiction if it is just and appropriate to do so. The appeal is dismissed as the only ground permitted was the existence of such power, which the court finds does exist.

Parties
Debtor: Lau Yu (also known as Jaffe Lau); Trustees: Patrick Cowley and Wong Wing Sze Tiffany (trustees in bankruptcy of the Debtor in Hong Kong)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Recognition Order Under Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Cross Border Insolvency, Recognition of Foreign Proceedings, Service of Process, Jurisdiction
Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Cross Border Insolvency Recognition of Foreign Proceedings Service of Process Jurisdiction

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lau Yu (also known as Jaffe Lau)

Debtor

Patrick Cowley and Wong Wing Sze Tiffany (trustees in bankruptcy of the Debtor in Hong Kong)

Trustees

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Recognition Order Under Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has power under Schedule 2 to the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 to retrospectively validate service of a recognition application outside England and Wales.

Ratio Decidendi

The court has power under Schedule 2 to the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, read with CPR rule 6.15(2), to retrospectively validate service of a recognition application outside the jurisdiction if it is just and appropriate to do so. The appeal is dismissed as the only ground permitted was the existence of such power, which the court finds does exist.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.