Anthony Lee Gaster v The Commissioners for HMRC

On an adjourned bankruptcy petition, the petitioner must deliver a notice of the adjournment order to the debtor. The order itself need not be served on the debtor. The notice must contain the information prescribed by rule 10.23(4), be authenticated and dated, and be delivered by an authorised method under the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016. Delivery to the debtor’s solicitor is not required, although delivery to an authorised representative is permitted. Where inadequate notice deprived the debtor of an opportunity to be heard, the court could annul the bankruptcy order under section 282(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986.

HMRC presented a bankruptcy petition against Anthony Lee Gaster. The petition was adjourned twice while he sought to resolve the petition debt. After the second adjournment, the petition was fixed for hearing on 7 October 2024. Mr Gaster was neither present nor represented on that date, and a bankruptcy order was made.

HMRC relied on a letter said to have enclosed the adjournment order and on a certificate recorded on the court attendance sheet. Mr Gaster maintained that he had not received notice and that his solicitors should have been served. The issues were the meaning of rule 10.23 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, whether notice had been delivered, and whether the bankruptcy order should be annulled under section 282(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986.

1. The adjournment order had to contain the information required by rule 10.23(2), but the Rules did not require the order itself to be served on the debtor. The petitioner instead had to deliver a notice of the order as soon as reasonably practicable.
2. The notice had to identify the proceedings, contain the information required by rule 10.23(4)(a), and be authenticated and dated. Delivery could be by post, personal delivery or electronic means under rules 1.42 to 1.45. Delivery to the debtor’s solicitor was not required, although delivery to a person authorised in writing by the debtor was permitted.
3. A certificate complying with rule 1.52 was proof of delivery unless the contrary was shown. The certificate should state the delivery method and whether the signatory delivered the notice or instructed another person to do so.
4. The court applied the two-stage approach under section 282(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986. HMRC had not established delivery of the adjournment notice. Mr Gaster was deprived of an important opportunity to be heard, so the bankruptcy order ought not to have been made.
5. The court exercised its discretion to annul the order, having regard to the prompt application, apparent solvency and substantial reduction of the petition debt. The petition was to be restored for further hearing, with consequential costs matters to be agreed or determined at an expedited hearing.