2 Nov 2021
The application for leave was dismissed because the appellant failed to satisfy s.22(1)(b) — the grounds were predominantly case-specific and not issues of great and general public importance, and no ground before the court raised the pandemic impact; costs awarded to the respondent.
28 Sept 2020
Application dismissed because applicant failed to produce independent, cogent proof of availability and timing of funds; the conditional sale consideration and small deposit were inadequate and unsecured and likely undervalued, would not immediately discharge debts nor protect other creditors, the material presented was essentially the same as previously rejected and insufficient to meet the threshold for rescission under s98(1) BO; inherent jurisdiction could not substitute for statutory requirements.
17 Jun 2008
Leave was correctly refused because judicial review cannot be used to challenge decisions of superior courts of record (including the High Court and Court of Appeal) and therefore the relief sought (rescission of the bankruptcy order) could not be granted by judicial review; the additional evidence sought to be adduced was irrelevant to the judge's decision.
19 Nov 2004
The court held that the petitioner took reasonable and sufficient steps to serve the statutory demand and the petition (personal service attempted at the bankrupt's last known address and newspaper advertisement; substituted service ordered), the burden lay on the bankrupt to prove lack of notice and an arguable defence to the debt, and she failed to show any valid or arguable ground to dispute the debt; accordingly the bankruptcy order was not rescinded.
18 Jun 2004
The court found the petitioner had taken all reasonable steps under the Bankruptcy Rules to bring the statutory demand and petition to the debtor's attention; substituted service was properly ordered and executed and therefore the petition was duly served. High Court Rule O.10 r.1 does not apply to bankruptcy proceedings. The debtor was insolvent and the application was inordinate delayed; accordingly the bankruptcy order was not irregular and the rescission application was dismissed.
28 May 2004
Application to rescind the bankruptcy order was refused because, even allowing for an assumption that exceptional cases might permit invocation of s.98(1) without a change of circumstances, the applicant presented insufficient evidence to justify exercising the court's discretionary power under s.98(1).