De Louville De Toucy v Bonhams 1793 Ltd [2011] EWHC 3809 (Ch)

(1) There was no inconsistency between the Insolvency Rules (defining an 'incapacitated person') and the CPR (defining a 'protected party'). (2) The registrar should not have declared the claimant bankrupt: he ought to have (a) been aware that the claimant was incapable, (b) adjourned the case for a representative or litigation friend to be appointed, and (c) heard representations from such a person. (3) On the evidence, the financial situation was complex and, without proper investigation, it was impossible to be sure that it was appropriate to make a bankruptcy order, so the order was set aside and the matter referred to the registrar to be heard again. [Summary based on All ER (D) report.]


Hearing: 2 November 2011

Before: Vos J (judgment given extempore)

External link

Possible Bailii link (not there when checked last night, but might have appeared since)
- [2011] EWHC 3809 (Ch)Not on Bailii!

39 Essex Chambers - summary

LexisWeb - summary - [2011] All ER (D) 32 (Nov)

Garden Court Chambers - summary

Case analysis available on Westlaw