Burnden Group Holdings Ltd v Hunt [2018] EWHC 463 (Ch) (14 March 2018)

Burnden Group Holdings Ltd v Hunt [2018] EWHC 463 (Ch) (14 March 2018)

A fully paid shareholder is a 'contributory' for the purposes of IR r.4.79 and thus has standing to apply for inspection of proofs of debt. However, the applicant must also demonstrate a legitimate interest in the relief sought, such as a real prospect of a surplus in the liquidation. In this case, Group failed to establish a legitimate interest or prima facie evidence of a surplus, so inspection should not have been ordered.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 463 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Burnden Group Holdings Limited; Respondent/appellant: Stephen Hunt (Liquidator of Burnden Holdings (UK) Limited)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From District Judge's Order Regarding Inspection of Proofs of Debt in Liquidation
Outcome
Appeal allowed; District Judge's order set aside.
Legal Topics
Standing of Contributories, Inspection of Proofs of Debt, Definition of Contributory, Liquidation Procedures, Costs Orders in Insolvency Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Burnden Group Holdings Limited

Applicant/respondent

Stephen Hunt (Liquidator of Burnden Holdings (UK) Limited)

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From District Judge's Order Regarding Inspection of Proofs of Debt in Liquidation

  1. 1 Whether a fully paid shareholder is a 'contributory' entitled to inspect proofs of debt under IR r.4.79
  2. 2 Whether the District Judge erred in ordering inspection of proofs of debt and making a personal costs order against the liquidator

Ratio Decidendi

A fully paid shareholder is a 'contributory' for the purposes of IR r.4.79 and thus has standing to apply for inspection of proofs of debt. However, the applicant must also demonstrate a legitimate interest in the relief sought, such as a real prospect of a surplus in the liquidation. In this case, Group failed to establish a legitimate interest or prima facie evidence of a surplus, so inspection should not have been ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; District Judge's order set aside.

Orders

  • Order permitting inspection of proofs of debt by Group set aside.
  • Personal costs order against Mr Hunt set aside.