McAteer & Anor v Guram & Anor (Rev1) [2021] NICA 30 (07 May 2021)

Anoop Guram, as a bankrupt, lacks locus standi to defend the Roebuck Inn appeal proceedings because those proceedings relate solely to property interests vested in the Trustee in Bankruptcy and do not involve properly pleaded allegations of fraud. However, he retains locus standi to defend the 2013 tort action because it alleges fraud, potentially exposes him to personal liability not discharged by bankruptcy, and affects his reputation.

Citation: [2021] NICA 30
Parties: Plaintiff/appellant: Daniel McAteer; Plaintiff/appellant: Aine McAteer; Defendant/respondent: Sanjeev Guram; Defendant/respondent: Anoop Guram
Jurisdiction: Northern Ireland
Judgment Date: 07 May 2021
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Issue of Locus Standi
Outcome: Partially allowed
Legal Topics: Bankruptcy, Locus Standi, Fraud, Appeals, Trustee in Bankruptcy

Insolvency Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Locus Standi Fraud Appeals Trustee in Bankruptcy

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Daniel McAteer

Plaintiff/appellant

Aine McAteer

Plaintiff/appellant

Sanjeev Guram

Defendant/respondent

Anoop Guram

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Issue of Locus Standi

Legal Issues

1 Whether a discharged bankrupt (Anoop Guram) has locus standi to defend ongoing proceedings: (a) the 2013 tort action alleging fraud, and (b) the Roebuck Inn appeal proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Partially allowed

Orders

Anoop Guram has locus standi to defend the 2013 tort action.
Anoop Guram does not have locus standi to defend the Roebuck Inn appeal proceedings.