Ebert, R v. [2001] EWHC Ch 457 (12th November, 2001)

Ebert, R v. [2001] EWHC Ch 457 (12th November, 2001)

All applications are abusive, repetitive, and lack new material or reasonable grounds; previous judgments are binding; allegations of fraud, forgery, and perjury are unfounded and unsupported; assignment and bankruptcy order are valid; permission refused for all applications.

Citation
[2001] EWHC Ch 457
Parties
Applicant: Gedaljahu Ebert; Respondent: Ralph Wolff; Respondent: Mr. Rabinowicz; Respondent: Miss J. Y. Venvil; Respondent: Midland Bank plc (now HSBC plc); Respondent: Official Receiver; Respondent: H. M. Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Application for Leave Under Section 42 of Supreme Court Act 1981
Outcome
permission refused for all applications
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Assignment of Judgment Debt, Annulment of Bankruptcy Order, Judicial Review of Magistrates' Decisions, Disclosure Orders, Perjury Allegations, Conspiracy to Defraud
Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Judicial Review Abuse of Process Assignment of Judgment Debt Annulment of Bankruptcy Order Judicial Review of Magistrates' Decisions Disclosure 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gedaljahu Ebert

Applicant

Ralph Wolff

Respondent

Mr. Rabinowicz

Respondent

Miss J. Y. Venvil

Respondent

Midland Bank plc (now HSBC plc)

Respondent

Official Receiver

Respondent

H. M. Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy / Application for Leave Under Section 42 of Supreme Court Act 1981

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant's repeated applications for leave to institute or continue civil proceedings are abusive and lack reasonable grounds under s.42(3) Supreme Court Act 1981
  2. 2 Validity of assignment of judgment debt to Ralph Wolff
  3. 3 Whether bankruptcy order should be annulled

Ratio Decidendi

All applications are abusive, repetitive, and lack new material or reasonable grounds; previous judgments are binding; allegations of fraud, forgery, and perjury are unfounded and unsupported; assignment and bankruptcy order are valid; permission refused for all applications.

Court Disposition

permission refused for all applications

Orders

  • Permission refused for all applications under s.42 Supreme Court Act 1981
  • No appeal lies from this decision under s.42(4)