Anthony James Broom v Maria Del Pilar Molina Aguilar (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 1961 (Ch)
Albert Court (Westminster) Management Company v Victoria Fetaimia
17 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 1307 (Ch)
High Court
A court refused a woman's appeal against a bankruptcy order. Her arguments weren't strong enough, and she hadn't followed the right procedures. She also has to pay the court costs.
Key Facts
- •Mrs. Fetaimia applied for permission to appeal a bankruptcy order.
- •She also requested a stay of proceedings to allow her representation in British Virgin Islands (BVI) proceedings.
- •Four previous stay applications had been refused.
- •The appeal centered on two grounds: a cross-claim arising from events in the BVI and abuse of process.
- •The cross-claim lacked sufficient detail and evidence of loss and causation.
- •The abuse of process claim was out of time and lacked merit.
Legal Principles
Permission to appeal should be granted only if there is a real, as opposed to fanciful, prospect of success.
Court's standard practice for deciding whether to grant permission to appeal
An application for a stay of bankruptcy proceedings requires sufficient detail and candor, demonstrating the justification for such a request, especially considering prior refusals.
Judge's assessment of the stay application
In assessing a cross-claim, the court considers not only the potential for facts to support a claim, but also the substantiation provided, including addressing loss and causation.
Judge's evaluation of the cross-claim
Abuse of process claims must be timely and substantiated.
Judge's assessment of the abuse of process claim
References to Re Maud [2015] EWHC 1626 (Ch) and Re Maud (No 2) [2020] EWHC 974 (Ch) regarding abuse of process.
Relevant case law cited by the judge
Outcomes
Application for a stay of proceedings refused.
Insufficient detail, previous refusals, lack of notice to relevant parties, and no consideration of creditor harm.
Application for permission to appeal refused.
Appeal lacked a real prospect of success; cross-claim was unsubstantiated and abuse of process claim was untimely and without merit.
Mrs. Fetaimia ordered to pay respondent's costs.
Last-minute changes in applications and representation necessitated respondent's attendance.