Horler v Rubin & Ors

Horler v Rubin & Ors

Where a creditor appoints a proxy-holder and gives no express instructions or prohibitions, the proxy-holder's discretionary vote binds the principal. Thus, the creditor is treated as having consented to the application of funds approved by the proxy, precluding a valid complaint about such application.

Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Daniel Thomas Brian Horler; Defendants / Appellants: David Rubin & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy Administration, Application of Partnership Assets, Authority of Proxies, Constructive Trusts
Insolvency Law Partnership Law Bankruptcy Administration Application of Partnership Assets Authority of Proxies Constructive Trusts

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Thomas Brian Horler

Claimant / Respondent

David Rubin & Ors

Defendants / Appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application of partnership assets by a trustee in bankruptcy was wrongful where the creditor's proxy voted in favour of the application
  2. 2 Whether the authority of a proxy-holder extends to voting on resolutions not expressly instructed by the principal

Ratio Decidendi

Where a creditor appoints a proxy-holder and gives no express instructions or prohibitions, the proxy-holder's discretionary vote binds the principal. Thus, the creditor is treated as having consented to the application of funds approved by the proxy, precluding a valid complaint about such application.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.