Taylor v Savik & Anor [2024] EW Misc 15 (CC)
- 5 April 2024
The undischarged bankrupt applied for an order that the county court trial of an ongoing Insolvency Act 1986 (‘IA86’) case be heard by a jury rather than a judge alone. This request was opposed by the applicant, the trustee in bankruptcy.
The central issue in the IA86 case was the ownership of a property known as The Grange. The trustee claimed that the property, though registered in the bankrupt’s wife’s name, was held in trust for the bankrupt and should be considered an asset available to his creditors. The bankrupt and his wife denied this claim. Initially, neither party cited section 66 of the County Courts Act 1984 (the ‘CCA’) relating to jury trial. The judge adjourned the hearing and asked the parties to lodge written submissions, noting that the respondent was a litigant in person but that the same substantive law and legal rules applied.
The bankrupt had already pleaded guilty to a charge of defrauding HMRC and had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The bankrupt argued for a jury trial on the basis that a judge would be prejudiced against them as a convicted criminal and that a judge lacked the ability to take a ‘holistic view’ of the overall situation. The trustee also included paragraphs in the present claim relating to VAT fraud.
HHJ Paul Matthews referred to section 66(3) of the CCA, which directs a jury trial on a charge of fraud subject to a specific exception where the ‘court is of the opinion that the trial requires any prolonged examination of documents or accounts or any scientific or local investigation which cannot conveniently be made with a jury’. The judge concluded that the trustee’s paragraphs relating to VAT fraud did amount to a charge of fraud against the respondent, albeit he was also of the view that these paragraphs could have been omitted. However, the judge concluded that the statutory exception applied on the facts, and so denied the application.