Ahmad v Inland Revenue [2004] EWCA Civ 1758 (01 December 2004)

Ahmad v Inland Revenue [2004] EWCA Civ 1758 (01 December 2004)

The application for permission to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal would serve no useful purpose, as the underlying limitation argument was hopeless due to section 37(2) of the Limitation Act 1980, and even if time were extended, a further bankruptcy order would inevitably be made. The court's discretion to refuse an extension of time was properly exercised.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1758
Parties
Appellant/applicant: Musabbir Ahmad; Respondent/respondent: Commissioners of Inland Revenue
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Limitation Period, Extension of Time, Annulment of Bankruptcy, Discretion to Extend Time
Insolvency Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Statutory Demand Limitation Period Extension of Time Annulment of Bankruptcy Discretion to Extend Time

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Musabbir Ahmad

Appellant/applicant

Commissioners of Inland Revenue

Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether time should be extended to appeal against refusal to annul bankruptcy order
  2. 2 Whether pending appeal against refusal to set aside statutory demand bars bankruptcy petition under section 267(2)(d) Insolvency Act 1986
  3. 3 Whether limitation period under Limitation Act 1980 applies to tax debts

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal would serve no useful purpose, as the underlying limitation argument was hopeless due to section 37(2) of the Limitation Act 1980, and even if time were extended, a further bankruptcy order would inevitably be made. The court's discretion to refuse an extension of time was properly exercised.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • application for permission to appeal refused
  • no order as to costs