BR-2024-000795 - [2025] EWHC 2652 (Ch)

Rescission

Plainly, rescission is a potential alternative remedy. If pursued, to successfully terminate the bankruptcy (as opposed to annul) it will need to rely upon new material and/or a change in circumstances (noting this may include facts which came to light after the Bankruptcy Order but existed at that time) (see generally: Yang v The Official Receiver [2017] EWCA Civ 1465, [2018] Ch 178 including reference to the differences at [54]; Fitch v Official Receiver[1996] 1 W.L.R. 242, where many creditors, including the petitioner, wished the bankruptcy to be discontinued because they had concluded that the bankruptcy order prejudiced the recovery of a substantial asset of the estate; andPapanicola v Humphreys[2005] EWHC 335 (Ch)). 

However, this alternative relief has not been pursued so far. The skeleton argument of Ms Macro explains that it is only relied upon “if the court considers there are grounds or facts not existing at the time the Bankruptcy Order was made that may give grounds for rescission, having not been satisfied that the ground for annulment is met”. It is not entirely clear what is envisaged but plainly there is currently no room for any such decision. There is nothing for me to address, at least not at this stage.