Golstein v Bishop & Anor [2016] EWHC 2804 (Ch) (07 November 2016)

Golstein v Bishop & Anor [2016] EWHC 2804 (Ch) (07 November 2016)

Given the seriousness of the material irregularity and absence of special circumstances or prejudice caused by the applicant, the court should exercise its discretion to revoke the approval of the IVA under section 262(4)(a) Insolvency Act 1986. Delay was not attributable to the applicant, and validation of the supervisor's acts and fees is appropriate to protect third parties.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2804 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Joseph Golstein; First Respondent: Colin Michael Arthur Bishop; Second Respondent: Nicholas Barnett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Central London County Court (insolvency Act 1986, S.262 Application) / Remedies Following Successful Appeal on Second Ground
Outcome
Approval of the IVA revoked under section 262(4)(a) Insolvency Act 1986.
Legal Topics
Individual Voluntary Arrangement (iva), Material Irregularity, Section 262 Insolvency Act 1986, Exercise of Judicial Discretion, Revocation of IVA Approval
Insolvency Civil Procedure Individual Voluntary Arrangement (iva) Material Irregularity Section 262 Insolvency Act 1986 Exercise of Judicial Discretion Revocation of IVA Approval

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Golstein

Applicant/appellant

Colin Michael Arthur Bishop

First Respondent

Nicholas Barnett

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Central London County Court (insolvency Act 1986, S.262 Application) / Remedies Following Successful Appeal on Second Ground

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the approval of the IVA should be revoked under section 262(4)(a) Insolvency Act 1986 following a finding of material irregularity
  2. 2 Whether delay or prejudice bars relief to the applicant
  3. 3 Whether the acts and fees of the supervisor should be validated post-revocation

Ratio Decidendi

Given the seriousness of the material irregularity and absence of special circumstances or prejudice caused by the applicant, the court should exercise its discretion to revoke the approval of the IVA under section 262(4)(a) Insolvency Act 1986. Delay was not attributable to the applicant, and validation of the supervisor's acts and fees is appropriate to protect third parties.

Court Disposition

Approval of the IVA revoked under section 262(4)(a) Insolvency Act 1986.

Orders

  • Approval of the IVA is revoked.
  • Acts of the supervisor (Mr Barnett) are validated and not to be challenged solely due to revocation, subject to creditors' liberty to apply.