Lawrence v European Credit Company Ltd and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 June 1992 |
| Date | 22 June 1992 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Sir Donald Nicholls, Vice-Chancellor and Sir Michael Kerr
Insolvency - appeals - jurisdiction of Court of Appeal
Section 375(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 did not impliedly exclude the appellate jurisdiction conferred on the Court of Appeal by section 16 of the Supreme Court Act 1981.
The Court of Appeal thus had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the refusal of a High Court judge to extend time for appealing to him against a bankruptcy order.
The Court of Appeal so held when rejecting a preliminary objection to jurisdiction raised by the respondents, European Credit Co Ltd and the Official Receiver, on an appeal by Marilyn Lawrence against Mr Justice Hoffmann's refusal on November 22, 1989 to grant her an extension of time to appeal against a bankruptcy order made by the registrar in bankruptcy.
Mr Peter Jennings for the appellant; Mr Mark Cannon for the respondents.
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR said that section 375 of the 1986 Act provided: "(2) An appeal from a decision made … by a county court or by a registrar in bankruptcy of the High Court lies to a single judge of the High Court; and an appeal from a decision of that judge on such an appeal lies, with the leave of the judge or of the Court of Appeal, to the Court of Appeal."
The respondents contended that the judge's refusal to permit an extension of time was not "a decision of that judge on such an appeal" and accordingly that there was no provision for an appeal to the Court of Appeal. They relied on Podberry v PeakELR ([1981] Ch 344).
In that case the Court of Appeal had to construe section 108 of the Bankruptcy Act 1914, the material words of which were: "(2) … The decision of the Divisional Court upon any such appeal shall be final and conclusive, unless in any case the Divisional Court or the Court of Appeal sees fit to give special leave to appeal therefrom to the Court of Appeal, whose decision in such cases shall be final and conclusive…".
The court held that refusal to permit an appeal out of time was not a decision of the Divisional Court upon an appeal from the county court.
It was to be observed that in Rickards v RickardsELR ([1990] Fam 194, 199) Lord Donaldson of Lymington, Master of the Rolls, had said of that case: "This court held, rightly as I think, that the order refusing an extension of time could not be regarded as one made on a bankruptcy or any other appeal from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Council of the City of Stoke-on Trent v B & Q Plc ; Norwich City Council v B & Q Plc (Consolidated Appeals)
...in which the question at issue had arisen was set out in Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council v Wickes Building Supplies LtdTLRELR(The Times June 29, 1992; [1993] AC 227, 275-297). It was unnecessary to rehearse the European jurisprudence again. It was sufficient to record that the questio......
-
Securities and Investments Board v LLoyd-Wright and Another
...of State for Trade and IndustryELR ((1975) AC 295) andKirklees Metropolitan Borough Council v Wickes Building Supplies LtdTLRWLR (The Times June 29, 1992; (1992) 3 WLR 170) there should not be a cross-undertaking for damages. But he claimed that a further worldwide Mareva injunction against......
-
Protecting Child Sex-crime Victims: How Public Opinion and Political Expediency Threaten Civil Liberties
...Id. at 2-3. 178. Id. at 3. 179. See WASH. REV. CODE § 7.69A (1994). 180. Richard Seven, Child- Victim Shield Law Struck Down, SEATTLE TIMES, June 29,1992, at C4; Associated Press, Judge Makes Permanent His Ban of New State Law, OREGONIAN, June 30, 1992,atD10. See also Notice of Appeal to th......