Lloyds Bank Plc v Ellicott [2002] EWCA Civ 1333 (8 February 2002)

Lloyds Bank Plc v Ellicott [2002] EWCA Civ 1333 (8 February 2002)

The appeal was allowed because the procedural irregularity regarding permission for the Part 20 claim was technical and curable under CPR 3.10, the Family Division had no jurisdiction to enforce the indemnity, and the IVA did not bar Mrs Ellicott's claim as she was not a creditor at the time of the arrangement. Mr Ellicott was contractually bound to indemnify Mrs Ellicott under the 1994 consent order and was in breach.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1333
Parties
Claimant: Lloyds Bank Plc; Defendant/part 20 Claimant (applicant/appellant): Nicola Rosalee Ellicott; Part 20 Defendant (respondent): Richard Ellicott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment on Part 20 Claim
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Indemnity and Contribution, Individual Voluntary Arrangement (iva), Enforcement of Undertakings, Joint and Several Liability
Family Law Civil Procedure Insolvency Ancillary Relief Indemnity and Contribution Individual Voluntary Arrangement (iva) Enforcement of Undertakings Joint and Several Liability

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lloyds Bank Plc

Claimant

Nicola Rosalee Ellicott

Defendant/part 20 Claimant (applicant/appellant)

Richard Ellicott

Part 20 Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment on Part 20 Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mrs Ellicott could pursue a Part 20 claim for indemnity/contribution against Mr Ellicott after judgment for the bank against her
  2. 2 Whether procedural irregularity (lack of formal permission for Part 20 claim) invalidated the proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the IVA entered into by Mr Ellicott barred Mrs Ellicott's claim for indemnity/contribution

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the procedural irregularity regarding permission for the Part 20 claim was technical and curable under CPR 3.10, the Family Division had no jurisdiction to enforce the indemnity, and the IVA did not bar Mrs Ellicott's claim as she was not a creditor at the time of the arrangement. Mr Ellicott was contractually bound to indemnify Mrs Ellicott under the 1994 consent order and was in breach.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Orders below discharged
  • Judgment entered in Mrs Ellicott's favour against Mr Ellicott for indemnity and full contribution of all sums required to be paid to the bank, including costs