[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Alexander v Official Receiver [2001] EWCA Civ 1128 (11 July 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1128.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1128

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
IN BANKRUPTCY
(Mr Justice Hart and Mr Justice Ferris)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		Wednesday, 11th July 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE ROBERT WALKER: There are before me two applications for permission to appeal made in his bankruptcy proceedings by Mr Anthony Alexander, who has appeared in person. Mr Alexander wishes to appeal, first, from an order of Mr Justice Hart made on 23rd March 2001 and, second, from an order of Mr Justice Ferris made on 2nd July 2001.
2. It will be simpler to sketch in the background before I come to the detail of those two orders. Mr Alexander was adjudicated bankrupt on 24th February 2000 by an order of Mr Registrar Baister. That was on a creditor's petition presented by Phillips Electronics (UK) Limited, which had two orders for costs against Mr Alexander, assessed at £1,904 and £2,067. I take these facts from the very full judgment which Lord Justice Judge gave in this Court on 15th May 2001.
3. A week before the bankruptcy order Mr Alexander had paid an impromptu visit, in person and alone, to Master Eyre, who had made the first of the two costs orders which I have mentioned. That visit led to a sequence of events which is described in great detail in the judgment of Lord Justice Judge. I need not repeat it because this court has now held that a letter dated 18th February 2000 from the Civil Appeals Office did not mean, and could not reasonably have been understood to mean, that there was a general stay of execution in respect of both costs orders.
4. On 21st March 2000 Mr Registrar Baister dismissed an application by Mr Alexander to annul the bankruptcy order. On 11th July 2000 an appeal against the Registrar's order of 21st March was heard and dismissed by Mr Richard McCombe QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the Chancery Division in Bankruptcy.
5. Mr Alexander's application for permission to appeal from the order of Mr McCombe was one of several matters which were before the Court of Appeal on 15th May 2001, when Lord Justice Judge gave the judgment which I have mentioned. That application for permission to appeal was dismissed. The court also dismissed various others applications (some of which are mentioned below) and made a Grepe v Loam order: see Grepe v Loam (1887) 37 ChD 168. That order applies to the original action, but not (as Lord Justice Chadwick has recently confirmed in a direction) to the bankruptcy proceedings now on foot.
6. There have in the bankruptcy been other applications and decisions which I can pass over. All this is really background to the present applications, which relate to the timing of Mr Alexander's public examination under section 290 of the Insolvency Act 1986. This examination was ordered by the Registrar and Mr Alexander's appeal against that order was dismissed by Mr Justice Lloyd on 19th January 2001. But on 25th January Mr Justice Jacob, by consent, adjourned the examination until 16th March 2001. Mr Alexander sought unsuccessfully to appeal both orders. Those two applications were also dismissed by this Court on 15th May 2001.
7. The only outstanding issue, for today's purposes, is the date for the examination under section 290. That has already been the subject of a considerable amount of judicial activity. On 16th March 2001 it was common ground that the examination fixed for that date should be adjourned because of a forthcoming appeal by Mr Alexander. The Registrar proposed 25th May. Mr Alexander objected to that as interfering with what he called "our culture, customs and ways". He was referring to a trip which he was then planning to visit his mother and his sister on the occasion of a festival of the Greek Orthodox Church. After some discussion before the Registrar, it appears from the transcript that Mr Alexander then said that he would cancel his trip. He is recorded as having said, "no problem". Nevertheless, he asked for his objection to be noted and it does appear on the transcript. He also proceeded to appeal.
8. On 23rd March 2001 Mr Alexander applied to Mr Justice Hart, by way of appeal, to vacate the 25th May date. Mr Justice Hart granted that application, fixing 15th June as the alternative date, but declined to adjourn the examination generally. On refusing permission to appeal, Mr Justice Hart wrote (and this is the only record of the reasons for his decision):

"Mr Alexander wanted his public examination moved from 25th May (as ordered by the Registrar) because of family/religious commitments on that date. Before me the Official Receiver agreed to the public examination taking place on 15th June. Mr Alexander asked instead that it be stood over generally. He wishes to re-establish communication with his 17 year old United States raised son who will be visiting the United Kingdom in the summer. He showed me a letter from the son indicating a willingness to meet in late July/early August. Mr Alexander told me that this date had now been brought forward.

I considered that the date for the public examination needed to be fixed and was not persuaded that 15th June caused any interference with Mr Alexander's family life. Order accordingly."

9. What happened next does not appear from the papers. What is clear is that Mr Registrar Rawson then fixed 13th July 2001 as the date for the examination. On 2nd July Mr Justice Ferris dismissed Mr Alexander's appeal from that order. Again there is no transcript, simply the written reasons given by Mr Justice Ferris for refusing permission to appeal. I need not, I think, read out those reasons, which are largely in line with those of Mr Justice Hart.
10. So that, then, is the subject matter of the two applications before me.
11. Mr Alexander has not, in the course of his oral submissions to me, referred to the family matters mentioned by Mr Justice Hart, although he has, in the papers placed before the court, included some correspondence, including an e-mail which suggests that his reunion with his son in this country is now likely to take place in September. Apart from that, Mr Alexander has relied on his professed intention to make an appeal tomorrow against the bankruptcy order. The fact is, however, that the bankruptcy order was made as long ago as 24th February 2000. The time for appealing from that order is long since past and whether permission would be granted must be highly questionable, especially since an application for an annulment has already been rejected both by the Registrar at first instance, by a High Court judge of the Chancery Division and in this Court.
12. The fact is that both applications before me are applications for second tier appeals against what are essentially case management decisions, which ought not normally to be appealed at all: see the practice direction on Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules, paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5. Second tier appeals on case management decisions are far outside the spirit and letter of section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, under which second tier appeals have been restricted by Parliament to matters which raise an important point of practice or principle or for which there is some other compelling reason. Mr Alexander's examination under section 290 should, it seems to me, have taken place months ago. There is no further reason for any delay, nor is there any reason for interfering with the decision of Mr Justice Hart, so far as he refused to adjourn the examination generally, or the decision of Mr Justice Ferris, so far as he left in place the existing appointment for the 13th of this month.
13. For those reasons I dismiss these applications.
Order: applications dismissed.