Monte Developments Ltd v Court Management Consultants Ltd & Ors

Monte Developments Ltd v Court Management Consultants Ltd & Ors

There was no jurisdiction to make the charging order for sums not yet subject to judgment or assessment, and in any event, the charging order should be set aside in the exercise of discretion because the company was insolvent and the order would unfairly prefer the respondents over other creditors.

Parties
Applicant/respondent: Monte Developments Limited (In Administration); Respondent/applicant: Court Management Consultants Limited; Respondent/applicant: Paul Grant Jackson; Respondent/applicant: Patricia Mary Jackson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Company/insolvency Application / Judgment on Applications to Discharge Charging Order and for Directions Under Insolvency Act
Outcome
Administrators' application allowed; respondents' application dismissed
Legal Topics
Charging Orders, Administration of Companies, Jurisdiction to Grant Charging Orders, Discretion to Set Aside Charging Orders, Solvency Assessment, Insolvency Act 1986 Schedule B1, Charging Orders Act 1979
Insolvency Company Law Civil Procedure Charging Orders Administration of Companies Jurisdiction to Grant Charging Orders Discretion to Set Aside Charging Orders Solvency Assessment +2 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Monte Developments Limited (In Administration)

Applicant/respondent

Court Management Consultants Limited

Respondent/applicant

Paul Grant Jackson

Respondent/applicant

Patricia Mary Jackson

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Company/insolvency Application / Judgment on Applications to Discharge Charging Order and for Directions Under Insolvency Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction to make a final charging order for sums not yet subject to judgment or assessment
  2. 2 Whether the charging order should be set aside in the exercise of discretion under section 3(5) of the Charging Orders Act 1979
  3. 3 Whether the company was insolvent at the date of the charging order

Ratio Decidendi

There was no jurisdiction to make the charging order for sums not yet subject to judgment or assessment, and in any event, the charging order should be set aside in the exercise of discretion because the company was insolvent and the order would unfairly prefer the respondents over other creditors.

Court Disposition

Administrators' application allowed; respondents' application dismissed

Orders

  • The charging order is set aside in full.
  • No order is made on the respondents' application.