Creditor failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by appointment of receiver

First named applicant is a director and shareholder of the second named applicant, which company has been in receivership since December 2012 - applicants seek directions pursuant to s. 316 of the Companies Act 1963, (now contained in s. 438 of the Companies Act 2014) relating to a July 1997 mortgage between the second named applicant ("the company") and the first named respondent ("the financial institution") for thirteen declarations relating to, inter alia, the appointment of a receiver and validity of the mortgage - court is satisfied that due to the number and breadth of the applications, this application is wholly inappropriate use of s. 316 - second applicant lacks standing to bring the application - in May 2014, third named respondent entered and took possession of a car park premises which it had purchased from the second named respondent in his capacity as receiver of the company - servants or agents of the third named respondent broke and removed locks - rather than pursue rights he might have in landlord and tenant law, the applicants have embarked on a s. 316 application - in July 1997, financial institution issued a facility letter for £1 million for the purpose of assisting in the purchase of three properties - a condition would be that there be a debenture creating fixed and floating charges over the assets of the company, to include a first legal mortgage over the properties - the company then entered into a mortgage debenture whereby they agreed to mortgage and charge the properties to the financial institution and give the financial institution power to appoint a receiver - s. 316 provides for a mechanism of speedy and efficient disposal of issues that arise in the course of an insolvency - thirteen reliefs sought have been brought by an entirely inappropriate application - applicants submit that if the mortgage deed was not validly executed, then the receiver was not validly appointed - the company the subject of the receivership is not a party authorised to maintain a s. 316 application, therefore the second named applicant has no standing to maintain this application and consequently its application must fail - first named applicant claims he is a creditor, but if applying under s. 316 he must show that his creditor rights have been unfairly prejudiced by an action of a receiver - valid equitable mortgage subsists in favour of the financial institution - first named applicant has not advanced evidence sufficient to satisfy the Court of any improprieties insofar as the actions of the receiver were concerned - first named applicant was given opportunities to engage with the receiver after his appointment in December 2012 - applications refused.