• news-banner

    Expert Insights

Debtors’ Prison; Don’t Forget It


Trustees in bankruptcy can often come up against challenges in dealing with obstructive bankrupts. A bankrupt might ignore communications and requests for interview, fail to disclose information about their assets, or provide partial cooperation which fails to offer any substantive assistance.  

Faced with this situation, the Restructuring and Insolvency team at Charles Russell Speechlys has acted for Martin Armstrong of Turpin Barker Armstrong (the Trustee) in a successful application for the committal to prison for contempt of Court of Neill Carter – in Bankruptcy.

An application for committal is not commonly used, but it is an option worth remembering in respect of bankrupts who will simply not cooperate with their trustee.

The Facts

Mr Carter was made bankrupt following his failure to pay liabilities to HMRC of circa £200,000. In his initial questionnaire, Mr Carter disclosed a number of assets including luxury watches, large sums of cash in foreign bank accounts, restricted stock units, and private pensions.  

Following Mr Carter’s failure (over a number of years) to deliver up these assets to the Trustee, or to provide full and proper details about those assets, the Trustee applied to Court for a private examination of Mr Carter under section 366 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the 366 Application).  

Pursuant to the 366 Application, Mr Carter was ordered to deliver up information and documents concerning his assets and, thereafter, to be cross examined in a private examination on those assets (the Examination). Mr Carter failed to deliver up any material to the Trustee and, consequently, at the Examination, Mr Carter gave 11 undertakings to the Court (the Undertakings). Pursuant to the Undertakings, Mr Carter broadly undertook to the Court to provide certain information and documents about his assets to the Trustee.

Mr Carter failed to comply with any of the Undertakings, and did not meaningfully engage with the Trustee thereafter. 

Consequently, the Trustee applied to Court for Mr Carter’s committal to prison (the Committal Application). If the Court finds that an allegation of contempt is made out, it can order a custodial sentence of up to two years.

Mr Carter failed to attend the hearing of the Committal Application and the Court therefore issued a bench warrant for Mr Carter’s arrest. The authorities also issued a ‘port alert’ so that Mr Carter would be apprehended if he tried to leave the jurisdiction. Thereafter, Mr Carter ‘went to ground’ and evaded the police’s attempts to locate and arrest him.  

Mr Carter was finally arrested, much to his apparent surprise and after almost three years of evading arrest, at Gatwick Airport in May 2023. He was immediately remanded in custody at HMP Pentonville.

On 26 July 2023, the Court heard the Trustee’s Committal Application, with Rory Brown of 9 Stone Buildings acting as Counsel for the Trustee. The Court heard evidence of Mr Carter’s various separate contempts of Court, as well as the evasion of a bench warrant for his arrest.  

Mr Carter admitted his contempts of Court and, therefore, was found guilty on all counts.  

Mr Justice Richard Smith gave Mr Carter a custodial sentence of 18 months.  Mr Carter was also ordered to pay the Trustee’s costs of the Committal Application on the indemnity basis. 

In his sentencing remarks, Smith J drew attention to Mr Carter’s repeated and deliberate contempts of Court, saying:

"I am sure that your breach is a very serious one, concerning, as it does, the longstanding and continuing breach of your undertakings to the Court…”

“I am sure that your breach was intended to interfere, not only with the proper administration of justice, but also the proper conduct of your bankruptcy.”

“I am sure that all these matters show overwhelmingly a deliberate and a calculated choice not to provide the information and to flout the undertakings.”


“…you have clearly put the interests of your creditors in jeopardy and, on a more general level, the actions you have taken have not taken do have the effect of subverting the proper administration of justice and conduct of your bankruptcy.”

It now remains for Mr Carter to consider the option of belatedly complying with the Undertakings, if he wishes to apply to Court to purge his contempt with a view to seeking an early release from prison.

The Upshot and Practical Utility

Trustees in bankruptcy may not always consider an application for committal as a practical option, particularly as committal will not necessarily, in and of itself, result in a recovery into the bankruptcy estate. However, it is still a worthwhile option to consider in some cases.

While trustees in bankruptcy must be very mindful that the contempt jurisdiction is not to be weaponised or deployed overzealously, an obstructive, avoidant, or recalcitrant bankrupt may be reminded that persistent non-cooperation may ultimately result in time spent behind bars.

As such, office holders would be well advised to bear this option in mind in appropriate circumstances.

Our thinking

  • IBA Annual Conference 2024

    Charlotte Ford


  • Property Patter: Hotels

    Naomi Nettleton


  • Employment Law & Worker Rights – The Labour Manifesto

    Nick Hurley


  • Nick White and Sarah Johnson write for City AM on how Rule 40 affects marketing around the 2024 Olympic Games

    Nick White

    In the Press

  • Nick Hurley writes for People Management on the Conservatives' employment law proposals ahead of the General Election

    Nick Hurley

    In the Press

  • Is a Big Mac meat or chicken? Thoughts on the recent General Court decision

    Charlotte Duly

    Quick Reads

  • Tortious liability: Supreme Court brings relief for directors

    Olivia Gray


  • Stephen Burns and Katie Bewick write for New Law Journal on shareholders’ rights after Zedra

    Stephen Burns

    In the Press

  • Rhys Novak writes for Solicitors Journal on what legal advisors need to know about dawn raids

    Rhys Novak

    In the Press

  • Employment Law & Worker Rights - The Conservative Party’s Manifesto

    Nick Hurley


  • "Has anyone seen my cat?" - Pet-Nups and Pet Disputes between Unmarried Couples

    Jessie Davies

    Quick Reads

  • Employment Law & Worker Rights - The Liberal Democrats Manifesto

    Nick Hurley


  • The Africa Debate: Africa’s role in a changing global order

    Matthew Hobbs

    Quick Reads

  • Re UKCloud: The importance of exercising control over a fixed charge asset

    Cara Whiffin


  • Bloomberg quotes Dominic Lawrance on pledges to scrap preferential tax treatment for non-doms

    Dominic Lawrance

    In the Press

  • Consumer Duty Board Report

    Richard Ellis


  • Standard of repair put to the test - Estates Gazette Q&A

    Emma Humphreys


  • LIDW: Is arbitration an effective process for disputes involving state interests: a panel discussion of concerns raised in Nigeria v. P&IDL [2023] EWHC 2638

    Richard Kiddell


  • Injunctions against potential protesters - Estates Gazette Q&A

    Samuel Lear


  • Michael Powner, Isobel Goodman and Hauwa Ottun write for Law 360 on the Tips Act

    Michael Powner

    In the Press

Back to top