Boylan v Farthing

In the matter of Boylan v Farthing, the respondent, Stephen Farthing, applied to the court for the issuance of a bankruptcy notice against the appellant, Mr. Boylan, based on a judgment debt. Mr. Boylan contested the validity of the certificate of judgment used to support the application, arguing it was not a true copy of the judgment and contained inaccuracies regarding the date of judgment and the inclusion of additional parties. The case came before the court to determine the legitimacy of the certificate of judgment and its use in the application for the bankruptcy notice.

The primary issue before the court was whether the certificate of judgment complied with the relevant rules and was accurate in its representation of the judgment details. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the certificate was a true copy as required by the rules, and if it correctly reflected the judgment's date and parties involved. Additionally, the court had to consider whether minor inaccuracies or procedural errors in the certificate, such as the inclusion of an additional party on the backsheet, affected its validity.

The court found that the certificate of judgment, while not a verbatim copy, was a valid certificate under the relevant rules, as it closely followed the prescribed form and contained all essential particulars of the judgment. The court determined that the certificate correctly stated the date of the final judgment, which was pronounced on 1 November 1996, despite the judge having made interim findings earlier. The court also ruled that the addition of Mrs. Boylan’s name on the backsheet of the certificate did not invalidate the certificate since it did not form part of the body of the judgment. The court concluded that these issues did not affect the legitimacy of the certificate as it accurately represented the judgment's key details.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the costs be paid by the appellant, Mr. Boylan. The decision confirmed the validity of the certificate of judgment and upheld the respondent's application for the issuance of the bankruptcy notice against the appellant.