Binary. Nearly unanswerable. THE strongest ground in the entire case.
Arrest warrant and PE proceedings conducted under ss.290 and 364 IA 1986 (bankruptcy provisions). The company is in compulsory liquidation, not bankruptcy. The applicable provisions are ss.133 and 134 IA 1986. This is jurisdictional, not a typo.
What the opponent will argue, and why they are wrong.
Typographical error in the order. Correct provisions intended.
ss.290/364 are Part IX (bankruptcy). ss.133/134 are Part IV (winding-up). Different statutory framework, different powers, different safeguards. This is not a typo. It is application of the WRONG LAW to the WRONG TYPE of insolvency. Anisminic: jurisdictional error = nullity regardless of appearance. R (Privacy International): ouster clauses cannot exclude review of jurisdictional errors.
The substance of the proceedings was correct even if the statutory reference was wrong.
The statutory reference is not cosmetic. ss.290/364 confer different powers with different safeguards than ss.133/134. Section 290 concerns examination in bankruptcy. Section 133 concerns examination in winding up. Different thresholds, different scope, different consequences. An order made under the wrong statutory power is made without jurisdiction. It is void, not irregular.
The order itself cites ss.290 and 364 IA 1986. These are bankruptcy provisions. The company is in compulsory liquidation.
Fallback: JR-4 (wrong court under s.117(2A)) is independent. Even if provisions are 'corrected', County Court still lacks jurisdiction.
Independence: Partially dependent on other grounds succeeding.
| Date | Judge | Type | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 August 2025 | DJ Hart | Public Examination Order | VOID |