Image from Google Jackets

In Re Smith (A P)

Language: English Series: Rating Appeals ; 1990 RA 1-16(9)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: HL 30 November 1989. Application at magistrates court by a rating authority (R) for issue of committal warrant against R E Smith (S) for non-payment of rates . On 17 February 1989 the court ordered S to 60 days imprisonment, suspended on payment of 20pm for two months, thereafter 20 a week. Only one payment was made. S was made bankrupt on 31 June 1987. after further proceedings in the magistrates court,the registrar of the bankruptcy court stayed proceedings, under the Insolvency Act 1986 s285(1) . R appealed and the appeal was allowed. The decision being based on In Re Edgecome where the ruling was that the registrar had no jurisdiction to stay proceeding under s285. S appealed. The appeal was allowed, the judgement for Edgcome being considered erroneous. S285(1) being considered wide enough in scope to cover the decision of the registrar. The issue of the warrant could not be considered in isolation but must be considered as part of the whole procedure for recovery of unpaid rates
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS42248 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 35672-1001

HL 30 November 1989. Application at magistrates court by a rating authority (R) for issue of committal warrant against R E Smith (S) for non-payment of rates . On 17 February 1989 the court ordered S to 60 days imprisonment, suspended on payment of 20pm for two months, thereafter 20 a week. Only one payment was made. S was made bankrupt on 31 June 1987. after further proceedings in the magistrates court,the registrar of the bankruptcy court stayed proceedings, under the Insolvency Act 1986 s285(1) . R appealed and the appeal was allowed. The decision being based on In Re Edgecome where the ruling was that the registrar had no jurisdiction to stay proceeding under s285. S appealed. The appeal was allowed, the judgement for Edgcome being considered erroneous. S285(1) being considered wide enough in scope to cover the decision of the registrar. The issue of the warrant could not be considered in isolation but must be considered as part of the whole procedure for recovery of unpaid rates