Asertis Limited v Dale Heathcote & Anor.

Asertis Limited v Dale Heathcote & Anor.

The rewards claims fail because the payments to Mr Heathcote were properly authorised as remuneration for his services, not gifts or transactions at undervalue, and there was no evidence of intent to prejudice creditors or breach of the creditors’ interests duty at the relevant times. The payment claim succeeds because the £65,000 payment to Contract was a preference under s.239 Insolvency Act 1986, made to a connected party when the company was insolvent, and the presumption of desire to prefer was not rebutted.

Parties
Claimant: Asertis Limited; First Defendant: Mr Dale Heathcote; Second Defendant: Servico Contract Upholstery Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (insolvency/company) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Rewards claims dismissed; payment claim succeeds.
Legal Topics
Director's Duties, Transactions at Undervalue, Preferences, Remuneration, Tax Avoidance Schemes, Creditors' Interests Duty
Insolvency Law Company Law Director's Duties Transactions at Undervalue Preferences Remuneration Tax Avoidance Schemes Creditors' Interests Duty

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asertis Limited

Claimant

Mr Dale Heathcote

First Defendant

Servico Contract Upholstery Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (insolvency/company) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether rewards paid to Mr Heathcote were unauthorised or unjustifiable as remuneration and recoverable by the company or its assignee
  2. 2 Whether the rewards constituted transactions at an undervalue defrauding creditors under s.423 Insolvency Act 1986
  3. 3 Whether the rewards were made in breach of the insolvency or creditors’ interests duty

Ratio Decidendi

The rewards claims fail because the payments to Mr Heathcote were properly authorised as remuneration for his services, not gifts or transactions at undervalue, and there was no evidence of intent to prejudice creditors or breach of the creditors’ interests duty at the relevant times. The payment claim succeeds because the £65,000 payment to Contract was a preference under s.239 Insolvency Act 1986, made to a connected party when the company was insolvent, and the presumption of desire to prefer was not rebutted.

Court Disposition

Rewards claims dismissed; payment claim succeeds.

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant against Contract and Mr Heathcote for £65,000 as a preference under s.239 Insolvency Act 1986.