View source for De Louville De Toucy v Bonhams 1793 Ltd (2011) EWHC 3809 (Ch)

''(1) There was no inconsistency between the Insolvency Rules (defining an 'incapacitated person') and the CPR (defining a 'protected party'). (2) The registrar should not have declared the claimant bankrupt: he ought to have (a) been aware that the claimant was incapable, (b) adjourned the case for a representative or litigation friend to be appointed, and (c) heard representations from such a person. (3) On the evidence, the financial situation was complex and, without proper investigation, it was impossible to be sure that it was appropriate to make a bankruptcy order, so the order was set aside and the matter referred to the registrar to be heard again.'' [Summary based on All ER (D) report.]

==Other==
Hearing: 2 November 2011

Before: Vos J (judgment given extempore)

==External link==
{{#bailii:[2011] EWHC 3809 (Ch)}} - [2011] EWHC 3809 (Ch)

[https://www.39essex.com/cop_cases/de-louville-de-toucy-v-bonhams-1793-ltd/ 39 Essex Chambers - summary]

[https://lexisweb.co.uk/cases/2011/november/de-louville-de-toucy-v-bonhams-1793-ltd-and-another LexisWeb - summary] - [2011] All ER (D) 32 (Nov)

[https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/socialwelfare/2011-11-incapacity/ Garden Court Chambers - summary]

Case analysis available on Westlaw

[[Category:Other capacity cases]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:No transcript]]
[[Category:2011 cases]]
[[Category:Judgment available offline]]