Boris Franz Becker (a bankrupt) v Mark Christopher Ford & Ors

A suspension of automatic bankruptcy discharge should be maintained only while it serves the statutory purpose of securing compliance with the bankrupt’s obligations. The court must assess objectively whether the bankrupt has done all that could reasonably be done in the circumstances to fulfil any outstanding obligation. Perfect compliance is not required. Where any remaining failure is immaterial, or the continuing restrictions and criminal sanctions are disproportionate to the benefit of further suspension, the suspension should be lifted. Past misconduct, including imprisonment, is not by itself evidence of continuing non-compliance. The court should also consider whether sufficient evidence remains to justify an application to suspend discharge.

The applicant was adjudged bankrupt on 21 June 2017. An order made on 3 December 2018 under section 279(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 suspended the running of time for automatic discharge until the trustees certified compliance or the court ordered otherwise.

The applicant applied to lift the suspension and to restrict inspection of a settlement deed. The trustees did not identify any specific outstanding statutory breach and agreed to the confidentiality order. The central issue was whether the applicant had objectively done all that he could reasonably do to fulfil his outstanding obligations.

1. Application granted. The suspension order was lifted and the applicant’s bankruptcy was discharged with effect from 27 April 2024. The order restricting inspection of the settlement deed was also made.
2. Section 279(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986 requires the court to be satisfied that the bankrupt has failed or is failing to comply with an obligation under Part IX before suspension can be imposed. The corresponding inquiry on an application to lift suspension is whether the bankrupt has cooperated consistently with those obligations.
3. The appropriate standard is objective. It is sufficient for the bankrupt to show that, in the circumstances, he or she has done all that could reasonably be done to fulfil any outstanding obligation. The court should understand any remaining failure and its impact on the office-holder’s ability to investigate, recover, realise and distribute assets. The statutory scheme does not expressly make discharge conditional on complete compliance.
4. Suspension prolongs restrictions and the availability of criminal sanctions. It should therefore be imposed sparingly and only to assist the office-holder’s statutory functions. The court should consider whether any residual failure is material and whether continued bankruptcy would be disproportionate.
5. The trustees’ past conduct-based reservation did not establish present non-compliance. The applicant had engaged solicitors, provided evidence, entered a settlement agreement and confirmed that he had no further information about missing trophies. Objectively, he had done all that he could reasonably do.
6. The court expressed no concluded view on whether a discretion exists to lift a suspension, as that issue was not necessary to decide. If a discretion were required, it would have been exercised in the applicant’s favour.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.