Paul Allen (as trustee in bankruptcy of Pramod Mittal) v Pramod Mittal
[2023] EWHC 920 (Ch)
Boris Franz Becker (a bankrupt) v Mark Christopher Ford & Ors
1 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1001 (Ch)
High Court
Boris Becker went bankrupt. A court order stopped his automatic release from bankruptcy because he wasn't cooperating. After serving time in prison and cooperating fully, a judge decided to lift that order and release him from bankruptcy because he'd done everything he reasonably could.
Key Facts
- •Boris Becker, a professional tennis player, was adjudged bankrupt on 21 June 2017.
- •A 2018 Order suspended the running of time for his automatic discharge from bankruptcy.
- •The suspension was based on Becker's failure to comply with obligations under the Insolvency Act 1986.
- •Becker was subsequently prosecuted and imprisoned for offences under the 1986 Act.
- •In November 2023, Becker reached a settlement agreement with the joint trustees.
- •Becker applied to discharge the 2018 Order, seeking to lift the suspension of his bankruptcy discharge.
- •The joint trustees were neutral on the application but couldn't certify compliance due to Becker's past conduct.
Legal Principles
The purpose of suspending discharge from bankruptcy is primarily to achieve compliance with obligations under Part IX of the Insolvency Act 1986, which is in the public interest.
Shierson and Birch v. Rastogi (A Bankrupt) [2007] EWHC 1266 (Ch)
To suspend discharge, the court must be satisfied that the bankrupt has failed or is failing to comply with an obligation under Part IX of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Insolvency Act 1986, section 279(4)
The test for compliance is whether, objectively, the bankrupt has done all that might reasonably be done to provide information and fulfill obligations.
Keely v Bell [2016] EWHC 308
Discharge from bankruptcy does not affect continuing obligations to assist the trustee with information and asset recovery.
Shierson and Birch v. Rastogi (A Bankrupt) [2007] EWHC 1266 (Ch)
Outcomes
The 2018 Order suspending Becker's discharge from bankruptcy was discharged.
The court found that Becker had objectively done all he could reasonably do to fulfill his obligations to the joint trustees, despite his past conduct. The court considered that continuing the suspension would be perverse given his current cooperation.