The Supreme Court dismissed John Gill’s appeal against a High Court refusal to annul his 1995 bankruptcy adjudication. It also refused his application to introduce further evidence, holding that the material was not new and would not affect the outcome.
Gill was adjudicated bankrupt on 28 July 1995 on a petition by Philip O’Reilly and Company Limited. The petition arose from a Circuit Court judgment for £8,523.90, plus interest and costs. After payments, the balance owing on the adjudication date was £3,935.86. Gill did not dispute that at least £1,500 remained unpaid, the threshold described in the judgment for a bankruptcy petition.
In 2001, Gill applied to the High Court to annul the adjudication. The High Court treated his motion as an application under section 85(5) of the Bankruptcy Act 1988. Gill had not used the procedure under section 16 to show cause against the adjudication shortly after it was made. The High Court rejected his application, citing a delay of more than five years and the advanced stage of the bankruptcy.
On appeal, Gill argued, among other things, that the debt figures were wrong, that security or assurances had been provided, and that assets could have paid the debt. He also alleged negligence or misconduct by his former solicitors. The Supreme Court said those allegations about the solicitors were irrelevant to whether the bankruptcy adjudication should be annulled; it made no finding that the alleged misconduct occurred.
The court held that the unpaid debt was sufficient to support the petition and that any other assets were for Gill to use to pay it. It also concluded that the material Gill sought to introduce was information he had known about at the relevant time, so it was not new evidence. The court said the application would fail for delay even if there had been merit in it, given the progress of the bankruptcy, including the Official Assignee’s work to realise assets and a contract to sell part of the property.
The Supreme Court therefore upheld the High Court’s refusal to annul the adjudication, rejected the application to admit new evidence and dismissed the appeal. The judgment did not determine the separate matters concerning debts dealt with by the High Court, which were not appealed.