Juer v Lomas & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1568 (18 October 2001)

Juer v Lomas & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1568 (18 October 2001)

The applicant lacked sufficient standing to bring the claim, and the conduct of the liquidators, while mistaken, did not amount to serious delinquency or unfitness justifying disqualification under section 4 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The application was therefore properly dismissed and the order for indemnity costs was justified.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1568
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Ernest George Juer; Defendant/respondent: Anthony Victor Lomas; Defendant/respondent: Peter Spratt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Liquidator Disqualification, Standing to Apply for Disqualification, Fraud Allegations, Indemnity Costs
Insolvency Law Company Law Liquidator Disqualification Standing to Apply for Disqualification Fraud Allegations Indemnity Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ernest George Juer

Claimant/applicant

Anthony Victor Lomas

Defendant/respondent

Peter Spratt

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant had standing to seek disqualification of the liquidators under section 4 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the liquidators amounted to fraud or serious delinquency justifying disqualification
  3. 3 Whether the order for indemnity costs was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant lacked sufficient standing to bring the claim, and the conduct of the liquidators, while mistaken, did not amount to serious delinquency or unfitness justifying disqualification under section 4 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The application was therefore properly dismissed and the order for indemnity costs was justified.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • Indemnity costs order upheld