Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Rigby & Ors

Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Rigby & Ors

The application disclosed a sufficient prospect of success to avoid being struck out summarily. The judge erred in refusing Ultraframe the opportunity to adduce evidence, and neither delay nor Ultraframe’s dual role as creditor and litigation party were absolute bars to relief. The appeal was allowed and the application restored for directions and evidence.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) – Judgment on Application to Strike Out
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Liquidator's Powers, Assignment of Company Assets, Standing of Creditors, Delay in Applications, Summary Judgment/strike Out
Insolvency 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 8
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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) – Judgment on Application to Strike Out

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 the applicant was denied procedural fairness by not being allowed to adduce evidence
  3. 3 Whether delay or the applicant’s dual role as creditor and litigation party barred relief

Ratio Decidendi

The application disclosed a sufficient prospect of success to avoid being struck out summarily. The judge erred in refusing Ultraframe the opportunity to adduce evidence, and neither delay nor Ultraframe’s dual role as creditor and litigation party were absolute bars to relief. The appeal was allowed and the application restored for directions and evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Application restored for further directions and evidence
  • Directions to be made for future conduct of the application