Belchamber & Anor v CJ Hurst (Lickfold) Ltd & Anor

Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed appeal has no real prospect of success. Where bankruptcy rests on verified costs debts, the statutory demand has been served, and all avenues of appeal against the underlying costs orders have been exhausted, the debts cannot be reopened in the bankruptcy proceedings. In those circumstances there is no proper basis for setting aside the bankruptcy order. An adjournment is unnecessary where the material sought would not advance the determination of permission to appeal.

Mr and Mrs Belchamber were adjudged bankrupt on 7 March 2000 in respect of debts arising from costs orders made following litigation concerning a building-contract settlement. Their appeals against the bankruptcy decision were dismissed in their absence. Applications to relist and review that dismissal were subsequently rejected by Mr Jarvis QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, who also refused permission to appeal.

The applicants sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal and an adjournment to obtain the judgment of the judge who had dismissed their earlier appeal. The central issue was whether the deputy judge’s decision had any real prospect of being successfully challenged.

1. Adjournment. The application for an adjournment was refused. The deputy judge had reviewed the matters before the earlier court, and production of the earlier judgment would not advance the permission application.
2. Underlying debts. The bankruptcy orders arose from costs debts which had been established by court orders. The compromise giving rise to the principal liability had been upheld, subsequent challenges to the costs had failed, and the available avenues of appeal had been exhausted. The debts therefore could not legitimately be disputed in the bankruptcy proceedings.
3. Bankruptcy orders. The debts had been verified and the statutory demand had been served. In those circumstances there was no real prospect that the bankruptcy orders could be set aside. The numerous complaints raised by the applicants disclosed no legitimate ground for challenging the deputy judge’s conclusion.
4. The application for permission to appeal was refused. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was also refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal from the orders of Mr Jarvis QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, was refused. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was also refused.
• High Court of Justice, Chancery Division (in bankruptcy): The deputy judge upheld the dismissal of the applicants’ appeal against the bankruptcy decision and refused permission to appeal.
• Lower courts: Mr and Mrs Belchamber were adjudged bankrupt on 7 March 2000. Their appeal was dismissed in their absence, and their applications to relist and review that dismissal were rejected.