Daniel McAteer v Hat & Mitre Plc (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) & Ors

Daniel McAteer v Hat & Mitre Plc (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) & Ors

Although Mr McAteer was technically a contributory by virtue of an unregistered transfer of 10 shares, his interest was so minimal and opposed by all other shareholders that he lacked a sufficient or legitimate interest to justify the relief sought. His contractual rights under the MOU and Option Agreement did not confer standing, as they were contingent, remote, and did not arise from the insolvency regime. Procedural complaints did not render the hearing or outcome unjust. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Parties
Applicant/appellant: Daniel McAteer; 1st Respondent: Hat & Mitre Plc (in Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation); 2nd Respondent (joint Liquidator): Richard Toone; 3rd Respondent (joint Liquidator): Jason Maloney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal (chancery Division, England and Wales) / Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Relief in Liquidation; Permission to Appeal Granted and Appeal Heard
Outcome
Appeal dismissed after permission granted
Legal Topics
Standing in Insolvency Proceedings, Removal of Liquidators, Stay of Liquidation, Pre Emption Rights, Option Agreements, Procedural Fairness
Insolvency Law Company Law Civil Procedure Standing in Insolvency Proceedings Removal of Liquidators Stay of Liquidation Pre Emption Rights Option Agreements +1 more

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel McAteer

Applicant/appellant

Hat & Mitre Plc (in Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)

1st Respondent

Richard Toone

2nd Respondent (joint Liquidator)

Jason Maloney

3rd Respondent (joint Liquidator)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (chancery Division, England and Wales) / Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Relief in Liquidation; Permission to Appeal Granted and Appeal Heard

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr McAteer had standing as a contributory or otherwise to seek relief in the liquidation of Hat & Mitre Plc
  2. 2 Whether Mr McAteer's interests under a Memorandum of Understanding and Option Agreement conferred standing to apply for removal of liquidators, a stay, or other relief
  3. 3 Whether procedural irregularities at first instance rendered the hearing or outcome unjust

Ratio Decidendi

Although Mr McAteer was technically a contributory by virtue of an unregistered transfer of 10 shares, his interest was so minimal and opposed by all other shareholders that he lacked a sufficient or legitimate interest to justify the relief sought. His contractual rights under the MOU and Option Agreement did not confer standing, as they were contingent, remote, and did not arise from the insolvency regime. Procedural complaints did not render the hearing or outcome unjust. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed after permission granted

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed; order of ICC Judge Jones affirmed