High Court rescinds adjudication of bankruptcy, on the grounds that the debtor failed to disclose the circumstances of Estonian bankruptcy proceedings and the appointment of an interim trustee, which was highly material to the court’s obligation to satisfy itself that it had jurisdiction and discretion to make an order of adjudication.
Petition by a debtor to be adjudicated bankrupt – application for an order setting aside or staying an order of adjudication against the respondent – ground of material non-disclosure – precluded from making an order by reason of the prior opening of main insolvency proceedings by the Courts of Estonia – argued that appointment of interim trustee was not the opening of main proceedings in Estonia – Adjudication order by the Tartu County Court – appeals dismissed – section 15(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1988 letter - evidence as to Estonian Law – Recast Regulation 2015/848 – expert evidence that Estonian courts had fallen into error in terms of their decision that the appointment of interim trustees constituted the opening of main proceedings – jurisdiction of the court – court has discretion whether or not to make the order – Court is entirely reliant on the information supplied by the debtor – creditors are fundamentally affected by the Order – Court does not have the benefit of input from a creditor as to how it should exercise its discretion – Bambrick v Cobley principles apply to ex parte applications in bankruptcy and applications for an order of adjudication – circumstances of the Estonian bankruptcy and appointment of interim trustee were highly material to the High Court’s obligation to satisfy itself that it had jurisdiction and discretion to make an order of adjudication – must have known that the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings against him in Estonia and the appointment of an interim trustee was potentially relevant - debtor should have disclosed this information to the Court – failure to do so was not an innocent omission – probable that the High Court would not have made the adjudication order if they were aware of all the information – the debtor is significantly culpable in failing to bring it to the court’s attention – inherent jurisdiction of the court – section 135 of the Bankruptcy Act - order of adjudication rescinded.