R v The Insolvency Practitioners Association Ltd ex parte Allpress
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE JUDGE |
| Judgment Date | 19 February 1996 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1996] EWHC J0219-4 |
| Date | 19 February 1996 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/468/96 |
[1996] EWHC J0219-4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Before: Mr Justice Judge
CO/468/96
The Applicant appeared in person.
MR T KERR (instructed by The Insolvency Service, London, SW1) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Monday, 19th February 1996
In this case Martin Allpress applies for leave to move for judicial review.
In the Form 86A the first decision which is impugned is the decision of 19th December 1995 reached by the Insolvency Practitioners Limited Membership and Authorisation Committee not to renew the applicant's licence. The second decision impugned is the subsequent decision only to grant the applicant a restricted licence until 8th March 1996, when the licence will be withdrawn.
The relief sought is that he should be granted a full unrestricted insolvency licence in that he is "a fit and proper person and has conducted himself for the last five years in a proper and professional manner at all time". He asserts that there is no reason why he should not act as such, other than the reasons set out in the Committee's letter, which he says was retrospective and did not consider the position as it currently stood, and further in support of the case, he had been granted insolvency licences between 1991 and 1995 without apparent complaint and was considered fit and proper on each occasion when those licences were granted.
It is unnecessary to go into the history in any great detail in the present application, but the applicant has been qualified to act within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1986 and as far as I can gather from the papers he was granted authorisation during 1985 under the appropriate legislation. The authority was granted by the Insolvency Practitioners Association, which is the appropriate professional body under s.391 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
In September 1993, the authorisation was made subject to a condition that Mr Allpress would only accept joint appointments with another authorised practitioner. In December 1994, when his previous partner left the practice, the Association conducted an investigation into the practice. According to Mr Allpress the result was that he was found to be solvent, but there is no dispute that disciplinary proceedings were brought against him and he was convicted, reprimanded and fined in respect of, I believe, two of them.
There was an appeal to the Appeal Committee. The appeal was allowed in part, but the sentence was left unchanged. The precise details at this stage do not matter. During 1995, there was some disputatious correspondence between Mr Allpress and the Association. It is not entirely easy to follow the thrust of the correspondence because the bundle does not contain the letters in chronological order, but on 19th December 1995 Mr Allpress received a letter in which it was stated that the Committee "decided that it proceeded not to renew your current licence".
There were a number of grounds set out for the Committee's decision, as it was described, that it was not satisfied that Mr Allpress continued to be a fit and proper person to act as such. Attention was drawn to the rules in relation to insolvency authorisation and the consequences of the decision of the Committee not to renew the licence and there is then a reference to a licence period expiring on 18th January.
Faced with that letter Mr Allpress wrote expressing a wish to appeal against the decision, which he treated as a decision not to renew his current licence or grant him a full unrestricted licence. He set out that he was entitled to make written representations under the rules and that he did so, and he asserted that the representations would make clear that he was fit and proper to be authorised to conduct insolvency and to do so without conditions. The separate letter, dated 8th January 1996, sets out, in considerable detail, the matters about which Mr Allpress was complaining and to which he wished to direct the attention of the Committee.
On 18th January 1996 the Committee met. It took account of the representations made by Mr Allpress in his letter of 8th January and the enclosure. It decided unanimously not to renew his licence. There was specific mention of the reasons which persuaded the Committee to reach the decision that it had. On 22nd January Mr Allpress wrote to the secretary of the Association that he wished to appeal against the decision by the Committee and did so under Rule 24 of the Rules. This provides that an individual member may appeal against a decision or order of the Committee and an appeal shall be made in writing to the secretary within 14 days of service of the decision.
Mr Allpress complied with that requirement. Then Rule 25 provides...
To continue reading
Request your trial