Scottish & Newcastle Ltd. v Raguz [2010] EWHC 1384 (Ch) (10 June 2010)

Scottish & Newcastle Ltd. v Raguz [2010] EWHC 1384 (Ch) (10 June 2010)

The security offered by Mr Raguz was inadequate based on independent valuations, and the offer was not unreasonably refused by the petitioner. There was no credible evidence of a reasonable prospect of payment in full within a reasonable period to justify an adjournment. The fresh evidence sought to be adduced was either not genuinely new, not material, or could have been produced earlier. There was no material change in circumstances to justify review under s.375(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1384 (Ch)
Parties
Petitioner/respondent: Scottish & Newcastle Limited; Debtor/appellant: Zeljko Stephen Raguz
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy/insolvency Appeal and Review / Application for Permission to Appeal and Review of Bankruptcy Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; review refused; permission to appeal granted but appeal fails on merits.
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy Petitions, Security for Debt, Adjournment of Bankruptcy Proceedings, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Review Under Insolvency Act S.375
Insolvency Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Petitions Security for Debt Adjournment of Bankruptcy Proceedings Fresh Evidence on Appeal Review Under Insolvency Act S.375

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scottish & Newcastle Limited

Petitioner/respondent

Zeljko Stephen Raguz

Debtor/appellant

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy/insolvency Appeal and Review / Application for Permission to Appeal and Review of Bankruptcy Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bankruptcy petition should have been dismissed due to unreasonable refusal of security by the petitioner
  2. 2 Whether the petition should have been adjourned pending the sale of assets
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal or review

Ratio Decidendi

The security offered by Mr Raguz was inadequate based on independent valuations, and the offer was not unreasonably refused by the petitioner. There was no credible evidence of a reasonable prospect of payment in full within a reasonable period to justify an adjournment. The fresh evidence sought to be adduced was either not genuinely new, not material, or could have been produced earlier. There was no material change in circumstances to justify review under s.375(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; review refused; permission to appeal granted but appeal fails on merits.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted but appeal dismissed on merits.
  • Application for review under s.375(1) refused.