Claughton v Mitchell & Anor

Claughton v Mitchell & Anor

Permission to appeal was refused because the judge's findings of fact—that there was no binding agreement entitling Mr Michael to priority payment of fees and that he was concerned in the management of the company—were not perverse or against the weight of evidence. No fresh evidence justified a rehearing, and the funding agreement was not champertous.

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, Liquidator Powers, Priority of Claims, Funding Agreements
Insolvency Law Company Law Misfeasance Breach of Fiduciary Duty Shadow Director Liability Liquidator Powers Priority of Claims Funding Agreements

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 liable under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 for misfeasance or breach of fiduciary duty
  2. 2 Whether Mr Michael was entitled to priority payment of fees from the proceeds of the Asda claim
  3. 3 Whether the funding agreement was champertous

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was refused because the judge's findings of fact—that there was no binding agreement entitling Mr Michael to priority payment of fees and that he was concerned in the management of the company—were not perverse or against the weight of evidence. No fresh evidence justified a rehearing, and the funding agreement was not champertous.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Second Respondent to pay the Applicant £37,553.04 under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986
  • Second Respondent to pay interest of £18,024 at 8% per annum for the period 21 February 1997 to 12 November 2004