Davey v Money & Anor

Davey v Money & Anor

The Administrators did not breach their statutory, fiduciary, or common law duties in the conduct of the administration, the appointment of APAM, or the sale of Angel House. The sale process was reasonable, achieved market value, and was not manipulated by Dunbar or APAM. There was no conspiracy or procurement of breach by Dunbar. Ms. Davey was not discharged from liability under her personal guarantee. No loss was suffered by AHDL as a result of any proven breach.

Parties
Applicant/defendant: Julie Anne Davey; Respondent/joint Administrator: James Money; Respondent/joint Administrator: Jim Stewart-Koster; Respondent/claimant: Dunbar Assets PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil (company/administration/guarantee Enforcement) / Judgment After Trial of Consolidated Claims and Counterclaims
Outcome
All claims by Ms. Davey against the Administrators and Dunbar dismissed. Judgment for Dunbar on its claim for enforcement costs under the guarantee.
Legal Topics
Administrator's Duties, Sale of Assets in Administration, Personal Guarantees, Breach of Duty, Accessory Liability, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Valuation of Assets, Remedies for Breach of Duty
Insolvency Company Law Banking and Finance Administrator's Duties Sale of Assets in Administration Personal Guarantees Breach of Duty Accessory Liability +3 more

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julie Anne Davey

Applicant/defendant

James Money

Respondent/joint Administrator

Jim Stewart-Koster

Respondent/joint Administrator

Dunbar Assets PLC

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil (company/administration/guarantee Enforcement) / Judgment After Trial of Consolidated Claims and Counterclaims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Administrators breach their duties in the conduct of the administration of Angel House Developments Limited?
  2. 2 Did the Administrators act in breach of duty in appointing APAM and in the sale process for Angel House?
  3. 3 Was Angel House sold at an undervalue?

Ratio Decidendi

The Administrators did not breach their statutory, fiduciary, or common law duties in the conduct of the administration, the appointment of APAM, or the sale of Angel House. The sale process was reasonable, achieved market value, and was not manipulated by Dunbar or APAM. There was no conspiracy or procurement of breach by Dunbar. Ms. Davey was not discharged from liability under her personal guarantee. No loss was suffered by AHDL as a result of any proven breach.

Court Disposition

All claims by Ms. Davey against the Administrators and Dunbar dismissed. Judgment for Dunbar on its claim for enforcement costs under the guarantee.

Orders

  • Ms. Davey's claim under paragraph 75 of Schedule B1 dismissed.
  • Counterclaim against Dunbar dismissed.