Ramesh Philippe Dusoruth v Orca Finance UK Limited (in liquidation)
[2023] EWHC 1050 (Ch)
Paul Allen (as trustee in bankruptcy of Pramod Mittal) v Pramod Mittal
24 April 2023
[2023] EWHC 920 (Ch)
High Court
A bankrupt tried to avoid having his debt forgiven early. The court decided that the bankrupt's lawyer had agreed to accept the paperwork digitally and that he had done things that showed he knew he'd been served. Because the bankrupt hadn't followed the rules properly, the court kept his debt suspension in place.
Key Facts
- •Pramod Mittal was adjudged bankrupt on 19 June 2020.
- •An IVA was approved but later revoked due to material irregularity.
- •The trustee in bankruptcy applied to suspend Mittal's discharge from bankruptcy under section 279(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986.
- •The application was served late, raising issues of valid service and procedure.
- •The initial hearing granted an interim suspension order.
- •The substantive hearing dismissed the application due to invalid service.
- •The appeal challenged the dismissal based on service issues and the court's jurisdiction.
Legal Principles
The court has power to make an interim order suspending discharge, even with insufficient time for compliance with procedural rules (if urgent and reasonable grounds exist for concluding the substantive application would succeed).
Bagnall v the Official Receiver [2004] 1 WLR 2832
To effect service by email, prior written agreement to accept service electronically is required (unless an ad hoc agreement is reached).
CPR 6.3(1)(d), PD 6A para 4.1, Schedule 1 to IR 2016 para 1(4)
Service is deemed effective upon delivery unless expressly stated otherwise.
Asia Pacific (HK) Limited v Hanjin Shipping Co Limited [2005] EWHC 2443 (Comm)
Waiver can be express or implied; estoppel by convention arises where a common assumption, relied upon, would be unjust to withdraw.
Kosmar Villa Holidays plc v Trustees of Syndicate 1243 [2008] Bus LR 931
Retrospective validation of non-compliant service requires good reason, not necessarily exceptional circumstances.
Abela v Baadarani [2013] 1 WLR 2043
An interim suspension order made before the one-year period expires, and not set aside, allows the court jurisdiction to further extend the suspension at a substantive hearing.
Insolvency Act 1986, section 279
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The judge erred in finding invalid service. The court found that service was effected on 11 June and/or 15 June 2021, and that Mittal waived his right to contest service or was estopped from doing so. The court also found that it had jurisdiction to continue the suspension.
Suspension of discharge continued.
Serious non-compliance by Mittal with his obligations justified the suspension, outweighing the Trustee's delay in applying.