Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Rigby & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 276 (19 January 2005)

Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Rigby & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 276 (19 January 2005)

The application should not have been struck out summarily because it disclosed a sufficient prospect of success; the judge erred in refusing to allow Ultraframe to adduce evidence and in determining the matter without proper consideration of delay and standing. The dual role of Ultraframe as creditor and litigant did not preclude standing or relief. The appeal is allowed and the application restored for directions and further conduct.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 276
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Ultraframe (UK) Limited; First Respondent: Kenneth Brian Rigby; Second Respondent: Gary John Fielding; Third Respondent: The Burnden Group PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) / Appeal Against Order Striking Out Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Liquidator's Powers, Assignment of Company Assets, Standing of Creditors, Delay in Applications, Summary Judgment/strike Out
Insolvency Company Law Civil Procedure Liquidator's Powers Assignment of Company Assets Standing of Creditors Delay in Applications Summary Judgment/strike Out

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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ultraframe (UK) Limited

Applicant/appellant

Kenneth Brian Rigby

First Respondent

Gary John Fielding

Second Respondent

The Burnden Group PLC

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) / Appeal Against Order Striking Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to set aside assignments by the liquidator should have been struck out as having no real prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether Ultraframe had standing to bring the application under sections 167(3) and 168(5) of the Insolvency Act 1986
  3. 3 Whether delay or Ultraframe's dual role as creditor and litigant precluded relief

Ratio Decidendi

The application should not have been struck out summarily because it disclosed a sufficient prospect of success; the judge erred in refusing to allow Ultraframe to adduce evidence and in determining the matter without proper consideration of delay and standing. The dual role of Ultraframe as creditor and litigant did not preclude standing or relief. The appeal is allowed and the application restored for directions and further conduct.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Application restored for directions and further conduct
  • Matter remitted for proper consideration with evidence