Oraki v Hall

Oraki v Hall

The Orakis' applications failed because there was no procedural or substantive defect in the trustee's appointment, the possession orders, or the writ of possession. Proper notice was given under CPR 83.13(8), and the failure to disclose this to the judge on the ex parte application was a material non-disclosure justifying discharge of the suspension order. The Orakis' arguments regarding beneficial ownership, trustee's remuneration, and the validity of the bankruptcies were either previously determined or without merit. The trustee's application to lift the suspension and enforce the writ of possession succeeded.

Parties
Applicant/respondent: Sheida Oraki; Applicant/respondent: Ardeshir Oraki; Respondent/applicant: Michaela Joy Hall (Trustee in Bankruptcy of Sheida Oraki and Ardeshir Oraki); Applicant: Mr Parast
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy/insolvency Proceedings / Ruling on Multiple Applications (suspension of Writ of Possession, Discharge of Orders, Review/rescission of Possession Orders, Exclusion Order)
Outcome
Applicants' (Orakis and Mr Parast) applications dismissed; Trustee's (Ms Hall) application granted.
Legal Topics
Trustee in Bankruptcy's Powers, Suspension of Writ of Possession, Material Non Disclosure, Beneficial Ownership, Costs and Remuneration of Trustee, Statutory Time Limits for Enforcement, Challenge to Trustee's Appointment, Human Rights (fair Hearing)
Insolvency Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Trustee in Bankruptcy's Powers Suspension of Writ of Possession Material Non Disclosure Beneficial Ownership Costs and Remuneration of Trustee +3 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 7 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sheida Oraki

Applicant/respondent

Ardeshir Oraki

Applicant/respondent

Michaela Joy Hall (Trustee in Bankruptcy of Sheida Oraki and Ardeshir Oraki)

Respondent/applicant

Mr Parast

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy/insolvency Proceedings / Ruling on Multiple Applications (suspension of Writ of Possession, Discharge of Orders, Review/rescission of Possession Orders, Exclusion Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the writ of possession should be suspended or set aside
  2. 2 Whether there was material non-disclosure justifying discharge of the suspension order
  3. 3 Whether the trustee in bankruptcy was validly appointed

Ratio Decidendi

The Orakis' applications failed because there was no procedural or substantive defect in the trustee's appointment, the possession orders, or the writ of possession. Proper notice was given under CPR 83.13(8), and the failure to disclose this to the judge on the ex parte application was a material non-disclosure justifying discharge of the suspension order. The Orakis' arguments regarding beneficial ownership, trustee's remuneration, and the validity of the bankruptcies were either previously determined or without merit. The trustee's application to lift the suspension and enforce the writ of possession succeeded.

Court Disposition

Applicants' (Orakis and Mr Parast) applications dismissed; Trustee's (Ms Hall) application granted.

Orders

  • Suspension of writ of possession lifted; Barling J's order discharged.
  • Writ of possession to be executed after a specified period (provisionally 21 days from judgment).