P – Proceedings against administrator
13/10/15
BERNSTEN v TAIT [2015] EWCA Civ 1001
Claims against administrators of a limited liability partnership had been correctly dismissed on an application for summary judgment. Claims that the business could have been rescued and that it had been sold at an undervalue had no prospect of success.
29/7/15
DAVEY v CROXON; RE ANGEL GROUP LIMITED [2015] EWHC 2372 (Ch)
The applicant applied to remove company administrators and replace them with a liquidator. The administrators brought misfeasance claims against the applicant in relation to payment of a dividend. The applicant applied for specific disclosure of documents relating to the administrators’ costs. The administrators cross applied for specific disclosure of documents relating to the dividend. The court refused to make any order. The administrators had given disclosure of much documentation, and if there was any failure by the applicant to provide full and frank disclosure, the trial judge could decide what (if any) adverse inferences should be drawn.
8/4/14
BERNTSEN v TAIT (RE CONISTON HOTEL (KENT) LLP) [2014] EWHC 1100 (Ch)
The court summarily dismissed a claim by members of an insolvent limited liability partnership to discharge the administration of the LLP and remove the administrators. Allegations of conspiracy to defraud the members by selling property at an undervalue and sham marketing were unfounded and should not have been pleaded. The members had no pecuniary interest to give them standing to apply for an examination of the conduct of the administration under Sch B1 para 75 Insolvency Act 1986, because any reimbursement of fees would benefit only the secured creditors.
1/2/13
IN THE MATTER OF CONISTON HOTEL (KENT) LLP (in liquidation) [2013] EWHC 93 (Ch)
A court can determine a claim properly started against an administrator of an LLP under Insolvency Act 1986 Sch B1 para 74 even after the LLP has moved into liquidation. Claims under para 74 or para 75 of Sch B1 should be limited to claims for harm caused as result of conduct by an administrator and suffered by the complainant as a creditor or member, and should not include claims for personal losses for professional negligence prior to the administration. Paras 74 and 75 are not identical. Para 74 concerns management. Para 75 concerns misconduct.
15/11/12
WRIGHT HASSALL LLP v DUNCAN MORRIS [2012] EWCA Civ 1472
Proceedings against the defendant “as administrator” of a company were against him personally and not against the company. For the company to be a party it must be named as a defendant and stated to be “in administration”. The administrator was therefore personally liable for the judgment against him in the proceedings.
© Copyright 2015 Neil Levy All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer