In March 2022, a judge declared that the bankrupt was the sole legal and beneficial owner of all 11 properties. The properties duly vested in the trustees.
In the two years following the declaration, the bankrupt made numerous applications relating to the legal and beneficial ownership of the properties, including applications for permission to appeal, applications to amend her grounds for appeal, and applications to rely on fresh evidence, as well as three applications to stay the enforcement of the order for the possession and sale of the London flat. A number of these applications were dismissed as being without merit, while others were dismissed.
The trustees applied for an Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO) on the basis that the bankrupt would persist in making applications that were without merit. Sir Anthony Mann found that the bankrupt continued to pursue points that she had already lost on numerous occasions. In circumstances where she refused to give up her claims, notwithstanding that the issue of ownership had been determined and that orders for possession and sale had been made, it was considered appropriate to grant an ECRO.
While it is generally better to try to work with bankrupts/respondents, this is a helpful reminder that where their conduct is such that they make applications which lack merit, and do so persistently, the court’s assistance can be sought.
Kicks v Crossley [2024] 7 WLUK 196
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.