The origins and development of the office of registrar in bankruptcy of the High Court
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article examines the history of the office of Bankruptcy Registrar of the High Court of England and Wales. It is argued that the power of the registrars to act judicially grew from their authorisation to act pursuant to delegated powers introduced in 1869 and that this began a major shift in their role from being largely administrative to their current status as fully fledged (and renamed) insolvency and companies court judges. The fluidity of bankruptcy offices in the nineteenth century is also examined, demonstrating that certain bankruptcy officer‐holders moved freely between functions in the course of the development in the office of registrar from what might be called its administrative phase to the judicial phase with the eventual creation of a Bankruptcy Court and more recently the creation of a specialist insolvency and companies list in the new Business and Property Courts. Finally, it is argued that a factor in the foregoing developments and the increasing reputation of the bankruptcy registrars was the extension of their jurisdiction from pure bankruptcy work to include company insolvency, directors' disqualification cases and non‐insolvency company work, a significant increase in their trial work and their acquisition of an appellate jurisdiction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".