The High Court has dismissed a motion by bankrupt Joseph Lennon to annul his adjudication, holding that his proposed sale of a property and other grounds did not justify reopening the order.
Mr Justice Humphreys delivered the judgment on 30 September 2021. Lennon’s motion, brought on 23 February 2021, sought an order under section 85C of the Bankruptcy Act 1988 annulling the adjudication and an extension of time to show cause against its validity. The extension request was not particularly pressed, the judge said.
The adjudication was made on 11 January 2021 after the bankruptcy petition had been before the court on 11 occasions. The judge said the court had given Lennon repeated opportunities to participate, including a May 2019 direction to provide a statement of affairs and engage a personal insolvency practitioner. That direction was not complied with. The proceedings were also adjourned several times to allow steps towards selling property and responding to questions about a proposed sale.
Lennon argued that proceeds from selling his family home could settle the debt and that alternatives to bankruptcy should have been considered. He also relied on his absence from the adjudication hearing and alleged that his former solicitors had failed to provide documents, explain required steps or respond to correspondence. The judge noted that the former solicitors’ account had not been heard and did not decide whether they had defaulted.
The court held that an application made after the normal time to show cause, or an application to annul under section 85C, requires “extremely compelling reasons” to undo an adjudication. Lennon’s hopes for a future sale fell short: he had had almost three years from service of the bankruptcy summons to arrange it, and the judge considered that a reasonable time had been afforded.
The judge said the adjudication court had considered section 14 of the 1988 Act. Lennon’s absence did not by itself provide a basis to set the order aside, where his solicitors had notice of the hearing and no substantive defence to the bankruptcy had been shown. Even assuming some solicitor default, that alone was insufficient without an actual defence.
The court dismissed the motion. It did not annul the adjudication or extend time to show cause.