Malathi Latha Sriram v Commissioners for HMRC & Anor
[2024] EWHC 853 (Ch)
The Official Receiver v Myck Djurberg
29 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1938 (Ch)
High Court
A man in prison made three requests to the court relating to his bankruptcy. The judge decided he was able to understand what was happening, the requests for more information were too broad and pointless, and a request to delay things became unnecessary because the related court case had finished.
Key Facts
- •Myck Djurberg was adjudicated bankrupt on 20 September 2021.
- •He was subsequently convicted of fraud and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment.
- •Djurberg made three applications: a capacity application, a disclosure application, and a stay application.
- •The Official Receiver applied for a bankruptcy restriction order (BRO) against Djurberg for misrepresenting his turnover in Bounce Back Loan applications.
- •Djurberg alleged the Official Receiver acted corruptly and provided false statements.
- •Djurberg's applications were heard remotely due to his imprisonment.
- •Djurberg's son communicated on his behalf during the hearing.
Legal Principles
Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005): A person is presumed to have capacity unless proven otherwise; all practicable steps to aid decision-making must be taken; a person is not deemed incapacitated merely for making unwise decisions.
Mental Capacity Act 2005
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 1.1: The overriding objective of the CPR is to enable the court to deal with cases justly.
CPR 1.1
Insolvency Rules 2016, Rule 12.27: A party to insolvency proceedings may apply for an order for further information or disclosure.
Insolvency Rules 2016
Disclosure in bankruptcy proceedings is unusual and requires a good reason; the court should draw inferences if requested documents aren't provided.
Highbury Ltd v Colt Telecom Group [2003] BPIR 311; Re Angel Group Ltd [2015] EWHC 2372
CPR Part 18: Requests for further information must be concise and reasonably necessary and proportionate.
CPR Part 18
The court has inherent jurisdiction and power under CPR 3.1(2)(f) to stay proceedings.
CPR 3.1(2)(f)
A bankruptcy restriction order ('BRO') 'shall' be granted if the court deems it appropriate, considering the bankrupt's conduct.
Insolvency Act 1986, Schedule 4A
Outcomes
Capacity Application dismissed.
Insufficient current evidence to establish Djurberg lacked capacity; his actions demonstrated ability to understand, process information, and communicate decisions.
Disclosure Application dismissed.
Disclosure request was overly broad, lacked specific relevance to the BRO application, and was based on unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct.
Stay Application dismissed.
The criminal trial concluded, rendering the stay application irrelevant.
Similar Cases
Mohammed Kamal Ahmed v Elias Hussain & Anor
[2023] EWHC 593 (Ch)
Paul Allen (as trustee in bankruptcy of Pramod Mittal) v Pramod Mittal
[2023] EWHC 920 (Ch)
Mohammad Razi Khan v Arvinder Singh-Sall & Anor
[2023] EWCA Civ 1119
Ramesh Philippe Dusoruth v Orca Finance UK Limited (in liquidation)
[2023] EWHC 1050 (Ch)