Taylor vs Savik & Ryle

This case concerned an application by the second respondent, Philip Ryle, for a trial by jury in the context of an insolvency application. The application was opposed by the trustee in bankruptcy, Tracey Ann Taylor, and was ultimately dismissed by HHJ Paul Matthews.

TLDR:

• Philip Ryle applied for a jury trial in an insolvency case.
• The application was opposed by the trustee in bankruptcy, Tracey Ann Taylor.
• The court dismissed the application, ruling that the trial could not be conveniently conducted with a jury.

The case involved Tracey Ann Taylor, the trustee in bankruptcy of Philip Ryle, and Olga Savik, Ryle's former wife. Taylor sought a declaration that a residential property, The Grange, held in Savik's name, was beneficially owned by Ryle and thus an asset available for distribution among his creditors.

Ryle, an undischarged bankrupt and a litigant in person, applied for the trial to be conducted before a judge and jury, citing concerns about being treated fairly due to his status as a convicted criminal. Savik did not participate in the hearing.

The court examined the background, noting that Ryle had been involved in a VAT fraud scheme and had been sentenced to imprisonment. The property in question, The Grange, was purchased with funds provided by Ryle but registered in Savik's name to conceal his ownership.

The trustee's claim was based on the assertion that Ryle was the beneficial owner of The Grange, which was supported by his admissions during criminal proceedings. The trustee also argued that the payments made by Ryle towards the property fell within sections 339 and 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Ryle's application for a jury trial was supported by his witness statement, which expressed doubts about being treated fairly by a single judge and argued that a jury would better understand the context of his fraud. The trustee opposed this, stating that insolvency litigation is typically heard by a specialist judge and that the issues raised were not relevant to the trial.

The court considered the legal framework, including section 66 of the County Courts Act 1984, which outlines the conditions under which a trial by jury may be ordered. The court found that the case required a prolonged examination of documents and financial records, which could not be conveniently conducted with a jury.

Ultimately, the court dismissed Ryle's application, concluding that the trial should be conducted by a judge alone. The court emphasized the importance of efficient case management and the need for a detailed examination of the financial documents involved.

Legal representatives: Hateema Zia (instructed by Irwin Mitchell) for the Applicant, Philip Ryle in person.

Judicial Panel: HHJ Paul Matthews

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EW Misc 15 (CC)