Simon Carvill-Biggs & Anor v Ashley Valentine Reading

Simon Carvill-Biggs & Anor v Ashley Valentine Reading

The balance of risk of injustice favours continuing the stay of the possession order pending appeal, as the Appellant’s appeal raises substantive legal issues and eviction before the appeal would render the appeal academic, while the Administrators have not shown any material financial prejudice from a short delay. The stay is continued on condition that the Appellant pays £2,000 per month into court pending the appeal.

Parties
Applicant/respondent/joint Administrator: Simon Carvill-Biggs; Applicant/respondent/joint Administrator: Miles Andrew Needham; Respondent/appellant: Ashley Valentine Reading
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Variation of Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
Stay of execution of possession order continued, subject to condition of payment into court.
Legal Topics
Administration of Company Property, Possession Proceedings, Stay of Execution, Jurisdiction Under Insolvency Act, Relationship Between CPR 55 and Insolvency Act Applications
Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Property Law Administration of Company Property Possession Proceedings Stay of Execution Jurisdiction Under Insolvency Act Relationship Between CPR 55 and Insolvency Act Applications

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Carvill-Biggs

Applicant/respondent/joint Administrator

Miles Andrew Needham

Applicant/respondent/joint Administrator

Ashley Valentine Reading

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Variation of Stay Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Company’s interest in the Property is ‘property to which the company appears to be entitled’ under section 234(2) Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether the Judge was wrong to hold that CPR 55 did not apply to the possession claim
  3. 3 Whether it was an abuse of process for the Administrators to commence a second set of proceedings seeking possession in a different court

Ratio Decidendi

The balance of risk of injustice favours continuing the stay of the possession order pending appeal, as the Appellant’s appeal raises substantive legal issues and eviction before the appeal would render the appeal academic, while the Administrators have not shown any material financial prejudice from a short delay. The stay is continued on condition that the Appellant pays £2,000 per month into court pending the appeal.

Court Disposition

Stay of execution of possession order continued, subject to condition of payment into court.

Orders

  • Refusal to discharge or vary the stay except to impose a condition that the Appellant pay £2,000 per month into court pending appeal.
  • Counsel to draw up an agreed order and submit for approval, including costs.