Claughton v Mitchell & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 993 (20 June 2005)

Claughton v Mitchell & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 993 (20 June 2005)

There was no binding agreement entitling Mr Michael to priority payment of fees from the proceeds of the Asda litigation; the judge's finding of fact on this point was not perverse and cannot be set aside. Mr Michael was concerned in the management of the company for the purposes of section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The funding agreement did not amount to champerty as it did not give improper influence to funders.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 993
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Claughton (Liquidator for George Andertons (Sales) Ltd); Defendant/respondent: Mitchell; Defendant/respondent: Michael
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Misfeasance, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Shadow Director Liability, Priority of Claims in Liquidation, Funding Agreements in Insolvency
Insolvency Company Law Misfeasance Breach of Fiduciary Duty Shadow Director Liability Priority of Claims in Liquidation Funding Agreements in Insolvency

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

Parties

Claughton (Liquidator for George Andertons (Sales) Ltd)

Claimant/applicant

Mitchell

Defendant/respondent

Michael

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Michael was entitled to priority payment of fees from company assets as a result of an agreement
  2. 2 Whether Mr Michael was a shadow director or concerned in the management under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986
  3. 3 Whether the funding agreement for the litigation was champertous or improper

Ratio Decidendi

There was no binding agreement entitling Mr Michael to priority payment of fees from the proceeds of the Asda litigation; the judge's finding of fact on this point was not perverse and cannot be set aside. Mr Michael was concerned in the management of the company for the purposes of section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The funding agreement did not amount to champerty as it did not give improper influence to funders.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused