Golstein v Bishop & Anor

Golstein v Bishop & Anor

The appellant's claim was unliquidated and uncertain at the time of the creditors' meeting and DJ Hart's decision, and was properly valued at £1 for voting purposes. However, the debtor's failure to disclose ongoing disciplinary proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal constituted a material irregularity, as such non-disclosure would likely have made a material difference to the way creditors considered and assessed the IVA proposal, and could have affected the outcome of the vote.

Parties
Applicant/appellant: Joseph Golstein; Respondent (1st): Colin Michael Arthur Bishop; Respondent (2nd): Nicholas Barnett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed on Ground 1; Appeal allowed on Ground 2; Remedies to be determined at a further hearing.
Legal Topics
Individual Voluntary Arrangement (iva), Material Irregularity, Creditors' Voting Rights, Non Disclosure, Liquidated and Unliquidated Claims
Insolvency Civil Procedure Individual Voluntary Arrangement (iva) Material Irregularity Creditors' Voting Rights Non Disclosure Liquidated and Unliquidated Claims

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Golstein

Applicant/appellant

Colin Michael Arthur Bishop

Respondent (1st)

Nicholas Barnett

Respondent (2nd)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's claim was liquidated or unliquidated for voting purposes under the IVA.
  2. 2 Whether non-disclosure of disciplinary proceedings by the debtor constituted a material irregularity warranting revocation or suspension of the IVA approval.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's claim was unliquidated and uncertain at the time of the creditors' meeting and DJ Hart's decision, and was properly valued at £1 for voting purposes. However, the debtor's failure to disclose ongoing disciplinary proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal constituted a material irregularity, as such non-disclosure would likely have made a material difference to the way creditors considered and assessed the IVA proposal, and could have affected the outcome of the vote.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed on Ground 1; Appeal allowed on Ground 2; Remedies to be determined at a further hearing.

Orders

  • Ground 1 (liquidated/unliquidated claim) dismissed.
  • Ground 2 (material irregularity due to non-disclosure) allowed.