Shuvra Deb (Cayman Islands)

Morby v Gate Gourmet Luxembourg IV Sarl and another [2016] EWHC 74 (Ch)
On appeal to the High Court, Chancery Division before Mr Edward Murray (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court).

This case clarifies the mechanism by which personal service of a bankruptcy petition may be effected even in circumstances where the petition is not placed into the debtor’s hands.

Rule 7.55 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 may be applied to cure a defect in the requirement to serve a bankruptcy petition personally on the debtor as required by the provisions of Rule 6.14 of the Insolvency Rules 1986.

This may be done in circumstances where the test as to service as set out in Kenneth Allison Ltd v AE Limehouse & Co [1992] 2 AC 105 is satisfied; in particular, that the petition is left with or near the intended recipient.

Shuvra also appeared in the court below before Mr Registrar Briggs in the Chancery Division: (1) Gate Gourmet Luxembourg IV Sarl (2) Specialist Airport Services Limited v Morby [2015] EWHC 1203 (Ch).

In the Court of Appeal, Civil Division before Lord Justice Lloyd Jones, Shuvra successfully opposed an application for permission to appeal the decision below.

In that case, PhonepayPlus Limited v Ashraf and another [2015] Bus LR 567; [2014] EWHC 4303 (Ch), Shuvra represented the Claimant, PhonepayPlus Limited, the regulator of premium rate telephone and internet services which operates under powers conferred on it by the Office of Communications (OFCOM).

A preliminary issue decided in the Claimant’s favour was whether it had standing to bring proceedings against an individual who was providing premium rate services in the context of enforcing a fine ordered to be paid by that provider.

The protracted proceedings resulted in successful summary judgment on behalf of the Claimant.

In the High Court, Chancery Division, before Mr Justice Henderson. On behalf of the Defendant, Shuvra successfully secured an Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO) against the Claimant.

This case affirms the test in Re Ludlam (A Bankrupt) [2009] EWHC 2076 (Ch) that for an ECRO to be made, three unmeritorious claims or applications are required as the bare minimum to satisfy the requirement of persistence as stated in the Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 3C.

The Claimant had brought an unsuccessful claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 claiming a beneficial interest in the Estate and had persistently issued satellite litigation in different courts culminating in several costs orders, a bankruptcy order, a property possession order and the ECRO.