header-logo header-logo

20 April 2007
Issue: 7269 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Insolvency

Hickling v Baker [2007] EWCA Civ 287, [2007] All ER (D) 51 (Apr)

The Court considered s 364 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (power of arrest), holding:

(i) arrest under an order made under s 364 can be justified under Art 5(1)(b) of the Convention;

(ii) Art 5 does not require that notice of an application for such an order be given to the person to be arrested in all cases;

(iii) if the application is made without notice, the evidence in support of the application must make it clear why this is said to be justified as an exception to the normal rule;

(iv) if the order is made on an application without notice, it is necessary that the order should provide that the person be brought before the court at an early opportunity after his arrest;

(v) the order does not have to specify any particular obligation whose fulfilment is intended to be secured; (vi) it is doubtful whether the withholding of evidence could ever be justified on an application under s 364.

 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Anita Rasaratnam

Clarke Willmott—Anita Rasaratnam

Clarke Willmott strengthens social housing development offering with senior London appointment

Trowers & Hamlins—David Meecham

Trowers & Hamlins—David Meecham

Trowers strengthens Birmingham real estate team with partner hire

Blake Morgan—Jennifer Ray & Louise Culleton

Blake Morgan—Jennifer Ray & Louise Culleton

Blake Morgan expands private client and regulatory teams with new legal directors

NEWS
A mood of cautious optimism has enveloped the criminal law sector following indications the Prime Minister may abandon planned jury reforms
Helping to source the services and providers you need
The Senior Courts Costs Office has clarified that judges conducting detailed assessment proceedings cannot order security for costs—a ruling that may leave successful parties exposed to further litigation expense
Rejecting a generous settlement can prove an expensive mistake, as two recent high-profile cases demonstrate
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) continues to show that failing to disclose regulatory issues can attract harsher consequences than the original misconduct itself
back-to-top-scroll