Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Leave to bring proceedings against company in liquidation isrefused
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses application for leave to issue proceedings arising out of waste management legislation against a company in liquidation, on the grounds that: (a) the issue of the Deed of Surrender is not a basis on which the Court could make a decision on an application such as this; (b) the effect that funding the defence of the claim would have on the preferential creditors of the company is the factor that the Court should take into account; (c) the inappropriateness of the mandatory orders sought in the main proceedings against the plaintiff is also a consideration against granting the relief; (d) the absence of any assets or insurance on the part of the company which would allow it to comply with any of the orders sought in the main proceedings is a strong factor against refusing to grant leave as it suggests there is no useful purpose to be served in allowing the case to go forward; and (e) the plaintiff failed to establish any prejudice he would suffer by the refusal in his claim against the other respondents.
Application for an order pursuant to section 678 of the Companies Act 2014 for leave to issue proceedings against a company in liquidation - proceedings to be brought against the company are taken under section 57 and/or 58 of the Waste Management Act 1996 - the proceedings arise from the leasing of property to the company by the applicant - the applicant claims that when the property was surrendered to him after the company went into liquidation, it was contaminated and an environmental hazard - whether the fact the reliefs sought by the applicant in the substantive proceedings are of a mandatory nature are outside the scope of the liquidator’s powers under section 677 of the 2014 Act means leave should not be granted - whether the fact the Company does not have sufficient assets to meet any part of the applicant's claim means leave should be refused - whether the Deed of Surrender released the Company from any obligations or liabilities arising from its lease of the site and, as such, the proceedings as against the company are doomed to fail - whether there was any prejudice to the applicant by refusing the relief - leave to issue proceedings against company refused - Court directs that liquidator swear an affidavit confirming the contents of his solicitors correspondence upon which the Court relied in deciding that no insurance cover exists relevant to the claims made against Crumb in the main proceedings.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
