Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
Eleanor Temple, barrister at Kings Chambers, explores Day v Refulgent Ltd and explains why petitioners and litigants should not turn up at a bankruptcy petition hearing and expect to get an adjournment.
Day v Refulgent Ltd  EWHC 7 (Ch),  All ER (D) 21 (Jan)
The Chancery Division, in dismissing an appeal against a bankruptcy order, held that there had been a clear and careful judgment by the district judge, who had reached a decision that had been well open to her on the evidence.
This was an application by Mr Day for permission to appeal a bankruptcy order made against him by District Judge Kelly. The application for permission to appeal was listed at the same time as the appeal.
The brief background to this matter was that the respondent in this case (and petitioner in bankruptcy), Refulgent Ltd, had brought proceedings in the High Court against Mr Day and another. Pending the hearing of those proceedings, Refulgent had obtained a freezing order over Mr Day’s worldwide assets. As a result of court hearings regarding that order, Mr Day had been ordered to pay costs of £30,000 to Refulgent. Mr Day should have paid these costs by 24 December 2014, but failed to do so. Therefore, Refulgent presented a bankruptcy petition and Mr Day sought to defend that petition. He did so on several grounds, including:
There were two previous adjournments to the hearing of the bankruptcy petition and the matter came before the district judge in July 2015. She ordered that by 3 August 2015 Mr Day had to make an application to the High Court for a variation to the freezing order to let him sell two properties in Scotland and produce evidence that these sales were proceeding and a timescale for exchange of contracts. When the case came back to the court, Mr Day, who was representing himself, had not complied with the July order. All he had done was send the application to the High Court on 3 August 2015 by post. To this extent he had not ‘made’ an application by 3 August 2015 and he had not provided documentary evidence that the sales of the Scottish properties were proceeding.
He argued that the bankruptcy hearing should be adjourned again and said the sales of the Scottish properties were still proceeding and that he had made offers to Refulgent—principally to transfer one of the properties in Scotland to Refulgent. The judge had to decide whether to accede to the request for an adjournment.
His Honour Judge Behrens had to decide:
Mr Day argued that the district judge was wrong to make a decision on the bankruptcy petition before the outcome of the application to vary the freezing order was known. Mr Day also argued that the district judge had not properly reviewed and discussed his alternative proposals. In addition, he argued that:
Refulgent opposed the application submitting that it was a discretionary decision of the district judge and that she had considered all relevant factors. Reliance was placed on the decision of Photographic Performance Ltd v AEI Rediffusion Music Ltd  2 All ER 299, which established that before the court can interfere it must be shown that the judge:
Refulgent also relied on Edginton v Sekhon  EWCA Civ 816 (see blog post: Too late to adjourn a bankruptcy hearing to pay the petition debt) to establish that there was no right to an adjournment, as there was no convincing evidence the debt could be paid within a reasonable time. In that case, the court said the decision as to whether to adjourn or not was a case management decision—the judge had the discretion and the Court of Appeal should be slow to overturn an exercise of discretion.
As far as the security position was concerned, Refulgent relied on the House of Lords case of Fourie v La Roux  1 All ER 1087. It found that a freezing order is not the same as a charge or a security. Refulgent also argued that it was not unreasonable to refuse to accept an offer of security—see Shrimpton (Michael) v Darbys Solicitors LLP  EWHC 3796 (Ch).
At the hearing, Judge Behrens granted permission to appeal and went on to hear and subsequently dismiss the appeal.
This was a review, not a rehearing, and therefore Judge Behrens had to consider if the district judge had complied with the principles set out in Photographic Performance v AEI Rediffusion. He found she had. Although he had to look at everything the district judge considered, even if he disagreed, he had to decide if it was unreasonable.
Judge Behrens noted that the district judge had considered all the arguments by Mr Day and all offers made to Refulgent and she found against him. There was no proper evidence as to the equity in the Scottish properties or that the sales were proceeding. Mr Day didn’t do anything about the application to the High Court until the last minute and then not in accordance with her order and she was clear that the bankruptcy petition should not be repeatedly adjourned.
On the application before the district judge, Mr Day should have attached a particular piece of email evidence and had failed to do so. Judge Behrens allowed this to be produced. It purported to show that the sale of the Scottish properties was proceeding, but he found this did not make any difference as there were unacceptable conditions attached to the Scottish sale. There was, therefore, no real prospect that Mr Day could pay the debt within a reasonable time. The district judge had considered all of Mr Day’s offers and she was entitled to say that Refulgent had not acted unreasonably in rejecting the late offers. The debt was not secured by the freezing order and there was no realistic prospect the debt would be paid within a reasonable time and therefore she was entitled to refuse to adjourn the proceedings. Judge Behrens said he would probably have made the same decision.
There are a few interesting and helpful points made in this case. It is the only reported case about the nature of a freezing order and its effect on bankruptcy. If someone cannot pay a debt because of a freezing order you can still pursue a bankruptcy petition. Mr Day wanted to sell the properties at a price under their value and on various conditions. It’s interesting to ask what would have happened if he wanted to sell them at full value and without conditions. On the facts of this case, it would probably make no difference, as there was still a substantial delay in paying the debt and no evidence the properties could or would be sold within a reasonable period. Therefore, the judge was still entitled to refuse an adjournment.
This case cements the Edginton decision on the issue of the judge’s discretion whether to adjourn a bankruptcy petition or not. Only if there is credible evidence that the petitioner’s debt can be paid within a reasonable time should it be adjourned.
Petitioners and litigants should not expect to turn up at court at a bankruptcy petition hearing and expect to get an adjournment without compelling evidence that the debt can be paid within a short period. To do so is very a high-risk strategy. Clearly, repeated adjournments of bankruptcy petitions will not be allowed. Another good lesson from the case is that a freezing order does not provide a petitioning creditor with security for its debt—preventing the prosecution of a bankruptcy petition. This particular point has not been decided in any previous case.
Eleanor Temple practises in commercial and insolvency litigation and advisory work, specialising in company and partnership law, corporate and personal insolvency, director disqualification, banking and finance, restitution, fiduciaries, contract, commercial fraud and asset tracing. Eleanor acted for the Refulgent in this appeal.
Interviewed by Diana Bentley.
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
If you are a LexisPSL subscriber, click the link below for further information:
What is the procedure on a bankruptcy petition hearing?
Appeals in insolvency proceedings
Not a subscriber? Find out more about how LexisPSL can help you and click here for a free trial of LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency.
First published on LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency
0330 161 1234