Singh v Hicken [2018] EWHC 3277 (Ch) (29 November 2018)

Singh v Hicken [2018] EWHC 3277 (Ch) (29 November 2018)

The court's discretion under rule 18.35 was properly exercised; permission to challenge trustee's remuneration and expenses was refused as reductions of the required magnitude were unlikely given the history and circumstances, and the applicant failed to persuade the court that permission was appropriate.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3277 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant and Appellant: Kulvern Singh; Respondent (trustee in Bankruptcy of Kulvern Singh): Richard Hicken
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision Refusing Permission Under Insolvency Rule 18.35
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trustee Remuneration, Permission to Challenge Costs, Insolvency Rules 2016, Practice Direction: Insolvency Proceedings
Insolvency Bankruptcy Trustee Remuneration Permission to Challenge Costs Insolvency Rules 2016 Practice Direction: Insolvency Proceedings

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kulvern Singh

Applicant and Appellant

Richard Hicken

Respondent (trustee in Bankruptcy of Kulvern Singh)

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision Refusing Permission Under Insolvency Rule 18.35

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant permission to bankrupt to challenge trustee's remuneration and expenses under rule 18.35
  2. 2 Appropriate test for permission under rule 18.35
  3. 3 Application of guiding principles from Practice Direction

Ratio Decidendi

The court's discretion under rule 18.35 was properly exercised; permission to challenge trustee's remuneration and expenses was refused as reductions of the required magnitude were unlikely given the history and circumstances, and the applicant failed to persuade the court that permission was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Respondent's costs to be costs in the bankruptcy estate