Michelle Celia Culver Forder v Timothy Edward Forder and The official receiver and Mary Swindale
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE WARD,Lord Justice Chadwick,LORD JUSTICE CHADWICK |
| Judgment Date | 16 October 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWCA Civ 1527 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 16 October 2002 |
| Docket Number | Pro Forma |
[2002] EWCA Civ 1527
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
IN BANKRUPTCY
(Mr Justice Coleridge)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Lord Justice Ward and
Lord Justice Chadwick
Pro Forma
Mr James Bogle (instructed by Messrs HCL Hanne & Co, London SW11) appeared on behalf of the Applicant Mr Forder.
Mr Michael Glaser (instructed by Messrs Russell Cook, Kingston) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Mrs Forder.
Mr Duncan Macpherson (instructed by Messrs Johnson Sillett Bloom, London WC2) appeared on behalf of Miss Swindale.
I will ask Lord Justice Chadwick to give the first judgment.
This is an application for permission to appeal from an order made by Mr Justice Coleridge on Monday 14 October, at the outset of the hearing of an application for ancillary relief in matrimonial proceedings between Mrs Michelle Forderandher husb and, Mr Timothy Forder. The ancillary relief hearing had been fixed for many monthsandwas expected to extend over five days.
The effect of the judge's order has been that the ancillary relief hearing will commence subject to the outcome of this present application. Indeed, we underst andthat the judge is readyandwaiting to commence that hearing today. The relief which is now sought in this court, if granted, would abort that hearing. It is in those circumstances that the application for permission to appeal has been listed for immediate hearing in open court. The first available opportunity to hear the application, which was made yesterday, has been 10.00am this morning.
The factual background may be described shortly. On 10 October 2002 the husb and, Mr Timothy Forder, presented his own petition to the High Court for a bankruptcy order pursuant to section 264(1)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986. He did so without notice to the wife or, it seems, to the other party to the matrimonial proceedings, Miss Mary Swindale, who has been joined as an intervener. That was the second petition for his own bankruptcy which Mr Forder had presented within the space of a week. The previous petition had been presented on 3 October 2002 to the Kingston County Court—which, prima facie at least, was the court having bankruptcy jurisdiction in this case under rule 6.40 of the Insolvency Rules 1986. The district judge adjourned that petition to 23 October to enable the wife to attend if she so wished. On Monday 7 October the husb andsoughtandobtained leave to withdraw that petition; thereby depriving the wife of the opportunity to appearandbe heard on it. The husb andthen presented his own petition to the High Court, without notice, on Friday 10 October 2002.
A bankruptcy order was made against him at two o'clock in the afternoon of Friday 10 October. The wife, through her solicitors, learned of the bankruptcy order in the course of that afternoon. It seems that she was advised to seek an order under section 282 for the annulment of the order. She applied to Mr Justice Hedley in the Family Division. He directed that her application for annulment be listed for hearing before Mr Justice Coleridge at 10.30 on Monday 14 October, at the time when the ancillary relief hearing was due to commence.
So it was that Mr Justice Coleridge, at the outset of the ancillary relief hearing on the Monday morning, was asked to hearanddetermine the wife's application for an order under section 282 of the Insolvency Act. He took the view that the issues that would have to be resolved on that application were the same, or substantially the same, as the issues which he would need to determine on the hearing of the application for ancillary relief;andthat the sensibleandconvenient course was to st andover the annulment application until those issues had been determined in the proceedings that were already listed for hearing before him. That was the order that he made. He also stayed proceedings in the bankruptcy pending the determination of those issuesandthe consequent determination of the wife's application to annul the bankruptcy order. It is against that decision that the husb andseeks permission to appeal.
As I have said, section 264(1)(b) of the 1986 Act enables an individual to present his own petition for a bankruptcy order. Section 272(1) provides that a debtor's petition may be presented only on the grounds that the debtor is unable to pay his debts. Section 272(2)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Die Sparkasse Bremen Ag v Mehmet Armutcu
...has to satisfy the court that he has some kind of legitimate interest in applying. I note the observations of Chadwick LJ in F v F [2002] EWCA Civ 1527 where he said at [10]: "There is no requirement in [the rules] —or elsewhere in the 1986 Act —that an application for an order under sectio......