Forrester Ketley & Co v Brent

Forrester Ketley & Co v Brent

Permission to make applications under the extended civil restraint order was refused because none of the Defendant's proposed applications had a realistic prospect of success, and the civil restraint order was validly made and not unjust. The only exception was the transfer of bankruptcy proceedings to the High Court, which was agreed by both parties and appropriate.

Parties
Claimant: Forrester Ketley & Co; Defendant: David Brent
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Applications for Permission Under Extended Civil Restraint Order
Outcome
Permission to make all applications under the civil restraint order refused except for transfer of bankruptcy proceedings; costs awarded to Claimant.
Legal Topics
Civil Restraint Orders, Permission to Apply, Statutory Demand, Bankruptcy Proceedings, Charging Orders, Case Management, Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Insolvency Costs Civil Restraint Orders Permission to Apply Statutory Demand Bankruptcy Proceedings Charging Orders +2 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Forrester Ketley & Co

Claimant

David Brent

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Applications for Permission Under Extended Civil Restraint Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant should be granted permission to make applications under the extended civil restraint order
  2. 2 Whether the inclusion of 'taking steps in any court' in the civil restraint order was ultra vires or unjust
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant should be permitted to apply to discharge the civil restraint order

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to make applications under the extended civil restraint order was refused because none of the Defendant's proposed applications had a realistic prospect of success, and the civil restraint order was validly made and not unjust. The only exception was the transfer of bankruptcy proceedings to the High Court, which was agreed by both parties and appropriate.

Court Disposition

Permission to make all applications under the civil restraint order refused except for transfer of bankruptcy proceedings; costs awarded to Claimant.

Orders

  • Bankruptcy proceedings transferred from Kingston upon Thames County Court to High Court.
  • Charging order proceedings to be dealt with by a Chancery Division judge.