Rhodes v Official Receiver

On an application to extend time for appealing, the court may examine the merits. It is appropriate to refuse an extension where the proposed appeal has no real prospect of success. A final order for payment of costs remains effective unless appealed or set aside. Allegations concerning the underlying dispute, particularly allegations already rejected in earlier proceedings, cannot ordinarily provide a basis for annulling a later bankruptcy order founded on that costs order.

The applicant sought permission to appeal out of time against a deputy High Court judge’s refusal to extend time for appealing a county-court decision. The county court had dismissed his application to annul two bankruptcy orders: one made on his own petition in 1980 and another made in 1997 after he failed to pay a final costs order. He argued that the underlying debts resulted from fraud, conspiracy and corruption, and that the proceedings required further investigation. The central issue was whether an extension and permission should be granted when the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success.

1. The application for permission to appeal out of time was refused. The short delay was not, by itself, decisive.
2. The deputy High Court judge was entitled to consider the merits when deciding whether to extend time. Granting an extension would serve no useful purpose if the proposed appeal was bound to fail.
3. There was no apparent basis for annulling the bankruptcy order made in 1980. It had been made on the applicant’s own petition, and he had admitted that he was insolvent.
4. The 1997 bankruptcy order was founded on a final order for payment of costs. That order had not been appealed or set aside. The amount was owed, and the applicant had admitted that he could not pay it. In those circumstances, the bankruptcy order had been properly made.
5. Allegations that the debt arose from fraud, conspiracy or corruption could not be revived through an annulment application. Those allegations had already been advanced before the court making the bankruptcy order and on the appeal to Lightman J, where they had been rejected.
6. A final order for payment of money means that the sum must be paid unless the order is set aside. The proposed appeal therefore had no real prospect of success. There was no order for costs.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused permission to appeal out of time and made no order for costs.
2. High Court (Chancery Division): Mr Nigel Davis QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge, refused an extension of time for appealing the county-court decision.
3. Croydon County Court: District Judge Fink dismissed the application to annul the two bankruptcy orders.