Alexander v Official Receiver

Second-tier appeals against case-management decisions should rarely be entertained. Parliament has restricted such appeals to cases raising an important point of practice or principle, or involving some other compelling reason. The restriction applies with particular force where the proposed appeal concerns only the timing of a bankruptcy public examination. A general adjournment should not be granted without a sufficient reason for further delay. Where the examination has already been substantially delayed and no compelling point is raised, the appellate court should leave the case-management decision undisturbed.

Following his bankruptcy, Anthony Alexander faced a public examination under Insolvency Act 1986, section 290. The examination had been repeatedly adjourned. Mr Justice Hart moved the hearing date but refused to adjourn it generally. The Registrar later fixed a further date, and Mr Justice Ferris dismissed Alexander’s appeal from that decision.

Alexander sought permission for second-tier appeals against both orders. He relied principally on a proposed appeal concerning the bankruptcy order and, in the papers, on family commitments. The central issue was whether either application satisfied the statutory and procedural threshold for a further appeal against case-management decisions.

1. Applications dismissed. Lord Justice Robert Walker dismissed both applications for permission to appeal.
2. The proposed appeals were second-tier appeals against essentially case-management decisions. Under Access to Justice Act 1999, section 55, such appeals were restricted to matters raising an important point of practice or principle, or presenting some other compelling reason. The practice direction on Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5, indicated that case-management decisions ordinarily should not be appealed.
3. The timing of a public examination under section 290 of the Insolvency Act 1986 was a case-management matter. The examination should have taken place months earlier. There was no further reason for delay and no compelling basis for disturbing either the refusal to adjourn generally or the appointment of the later hearing date.
4. The proposed appeal against the bankruptcy order could not justify permission. The time for appealing had expired, and previous applications to annul the bankruptcy had been unsuccessful before the Registrar, a High Court judge and the Court of Appeal.

The orders of Mr Justice Hart and Mr Justice Ferris therefore remained in force.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Alexander v Official Receiver [2001] EWCA Civ 1128. Both applications for permission to appeal were dismissed.
• High Court, Chancery Division in Bankruptcy: Mr Justice Hart moved the public examination date but refused a general adjournment. Mr Justice Ferris dismissed Alexander’s appeal against the later appointment.