Harrison v Seggar
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Blackburne |
| Judgment Date | 28 February 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWHC 411 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: CH 2004 APP 740 |
| Date | 28 February 2005 |
[2005] EWHC 411 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr. Justice Blackburne
Case No: CH 2004 APP 740
MISS R. PAGE (instructed by Messrs. Actons) for the Applicant.
THE RESPONDENT was not in attendance.
Approved Judgment
Mr. Justice Blackburne
This is the petitioning creditor's appeal against the decision of District Judge Bailey on 3 November, 2004 in the Darlington County Court, adjourning generally the petitioning creditor's petition for the making of a bankruptcy order against the debtor, Gillian Anne Seggar.
on 17 January, 2001 a bankruptcy petition was presented against the debtor's husband, Neill Seggar, on which, on 15 May, 2001 at 10.00 a.m. in the morning a bankruptcy order was made. On the very day that the bankruptcy order was made, but shortly before the making of the order, a £2,300 payment was made to the debtor out of Mr. Seggar's account with Abbey National plc. The payment was, by Section 284 of the Insolvency Act 1986, a void transaction as it had been made after the presentation of the bankruptcy petition against Mr. Seggar on which, as I have mentioned, the bankruptcy order was subsequently made, and without the consent, or subsequent consent, of the Court.
On 28 June, 2004, following a letter to the debtor, dated 21 April, 2004, from the joint trustees in bankruptcy of Mr. Seggar, calling for the £2,300 to be repaid, the joint trustees caused a statutory demand, dated 24 June, 2004, to be served on the debtor for the £2,300. Following non-compliance with the statutory demand, and in the absence of any application by the debtor to have the demand set aside, the joint trustees on 13 September, 2004 presented a bankruptcy petition against the debtor based on the unpaid £2,300.
The petition, which was served on the debtor on 22 September, 2004 came before District Judge Bailey on 3 November, 2004. At the hearing the joint petitioning creditors—who are, of course, Mr. Seggar's joint trustees, were represented by a solicitor. The debtor appeared In Person. At the hearing the District Judge accepted that the £2,000 was repayable to Mr. Seggar's estate. It was repayable, as I have mentioned, by reason of Section 284. There had been lodged with the Court a notice of opposition by the debtor to the effect that the sum which had been paid to her was a sum which her husband had owed. But, as the debtor accepted at the hearing before the District Judge, the payment which had been made to her, was, insofar as it had been made to her as a creditor, a clear preference.
The District Judge, as I have mentioned, accepted that the £2,300 was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aabar Block S.A.R.L and Another (Petitioners) v Glenn Maud
...should only be exercised if there is a reasonable prospect of the petition debt being paid in full within a reasonable period: see Harrison v Seggar [2005] EWHC 411 (Ch), [2005] BPIR 583, at para [7] per Blackburne J, and Re Gilmartin (ABankrupt) [1989] 1 WLR 513, at 516F– G, per Harman J.......
-
Re Maud; Maud v Aabar Block S.a.r.l and another
...to a similar effect. There must be credible evidence to support such a prospect if the court is to grant an adjournment for payment": Harrison v Seggar [2005] BPIR 583, para 7, per Blackburne J. "There is no doubt that the court retains a discretion not to make a bankruptcy order, even wher......
-
Holmes & Ross v HM Revenue and Customs
...should only be exercised if there is a reasonable prospect of the petition debt being paid in full within a reasonable period: see Harrison v Seggar [2005] EWHC 411 (Ch), [2005] BPIR 583, at paragraph 7 per Blackburne J, and Re Gilmartin (a bankrupt) [1989] 1 WLR 513 at 516 F-G per Harman J......
-
Stephen John Day v Refulgent Ltd
...a similar effect. There must be credible evidence to support such a prospect if the court is to grant an adjournment for payment." Harrison v Seggar [2005] EWHC 411 (Ch) , [2005] BPIR 583, Blackburne J. "There is no doubt that the court retains a discretion not to make a bankruptcy order......