Sheida Oraki and Another v Dean & Dean (a firm taken over by the Law Society)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Robert Ham |
| Judgment Date | 11 January 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 11 (Ch) |
| Date | 11 January 2017 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
[2017] EWHC 11 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
IN BANKRUPTCY
Royal Courts of Justice,
7 Rolls Building,
Fetter Lane,
London EC4A 1NL
Mr Robert Ham, QC
(sitting as a deputy judge)
In the Matter of Sheida Oraki
And in the Matter of Ardeshir Oraki
And in the Matter of the Insolvency Act 1986
The 1st Applicant in person by telephone
Mr Leon Hines (Hines & Co) solicitor for 2nd applicant
Mr John Briggs (instructed by DAC Beachcroft LLP) for the trustee in bankruptcy
The respondent did not appear
Hearing date: 19 December 2016
JUDGMENT APPROVED
Mr Robert Ham, QC:
This is a sequel to my judgment of 23 October 2012, neutral citation [2012] EWHC 2885 (Ch), which contains an account of the background to this sad case.
I said in that judgment that (a) it was quite clear that the assets of the bankrupt estates were more than sufficient to discharge all possible claims and costs that might fall on them, (b) the sooner the bankruptcies were ended the better and (c) too much judicial time had already been devoted to this matter. With that end in mind, I made an order dated 21 January 2013 conditionally annulling the two bankruptcy orders in this matter, on terms intended to protect the position of other creditors and the trustees in bankruptcy in respect of the costs incurred by them.
Unfortunately, the conditions have not been satisfied, so that the bankruptcies go on, well into their second decades; and there have more proceedings. They include (a) an unsuccessful appeal to the Court of Appeal against my order: [2013] EWCA Civ 1629; and (b) a claim for professional negligence against the predecessors of the present trustee in bankruptcy, which has involved (i) a strike out application to Deputy Master Clark (as she then was), (ii) an appeal to Mr Nicholas Strauss, QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) against her order, (iii) an eight-day trial before Proudman J [2015] EWHC 2046 (Ch), who dismissed the claim; and (iv) an appeal to the Court of Appeal, which has reserved judgment. There have also been various applications to Bankruptcy Registrars.
The costs generated are enormous, and it is no longer clear that the assets of the bankrupt estates are sufficient to discharge all claims and costs that may fall on them. The costs of the trustees alone are said to amount to over £700,000, many times greater than the judgment debt of less than £20,000, on which the bankruptcies were based, and which was set aside as a result of my order. I understand that Proudman J ordered the Orakis to pay the costs of the proceedings before here, and there are further bankruptcy proceedings against them in respect of those costs.
The Orakis now apply to have the bankruptcy order annulled on the ground that it was made without jurisdiction under section 264 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and/or under section 375(1) of that Act for a review and/or variation and/or rescission of my previous order. They rely on two points, but before considering them I must say something about the parties to the application.
The application was not served on the current trustee in bankruptcy, Michaela Hall, but her solicitors having got wind of it she attended by counsel when the matter was first listed before me on 28 November 2016. Despite strong objections to the presence of representatives of the trustee, I indicated that I would in any event have adjourned the matter to give the trustee an opportunity to attend to assist the court. The Insolvency Rules provide for the trustee to...
To continue reading
Request your trial