Peters (The Liquidator of Automold Ltd) v Menzies & Ors [2009] EWHC 3709 (Ch) (08 July 2009)

Peters (The Liquidator of Automold Ltd) v Menzies & Ors [2009] EWHC 3709 (Ch) (08 July 2009)

The court declined to proceed with the strike out application because it was not satisfied that striking out the impugned paragraphs would obviate the necessity for a trial or substantially reduce the burden of preparing for or conducting the trial. The same evidence would be required for the remaining claims, and the expert evidence direction remained appropriate.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 3709 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Andrew Philip Peters (The Liquidator of Automold Limited) (In Liquidation); Defendants: Andrew Michael Menzies & Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Strike Out Application in Insolvency Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Before Trial
Outcome
Strike out application declined; court refused to proceed with the argument.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Administrators' Duties, Negligence, Fiduciary Duty, Misfeasance
Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Strike Out Applications Administrators' Duties Negligence Fiduciary Duty Misfeasance

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Philip Peters (The Liquidator of Automold Limited) (In Liquidation)

Claimant

Andrew Michael Menzies & Others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Strike Out Application in Insolvency Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parts of the points of claim should be struck out, particularly pre-appointment and negligence claims against administrators
  2. 2 Whether striking out would obviate the necessity for trial or substantially reduce trial burden
  3. 3 Whether expert evidence direction should be revisited

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to proceed with the strike out application because it was not satisfied that striking out the impugned paragraphs would obviate the necessity for a trial or substantially reduce the burden of preparing for or conducting the trial. The same evidence would be required for the remaining claims, and the expert evidence direction remained appropriate.

Court Disposition

Strike out application declined; court refused to proceed with the argument.

Orders

  • Application to strike out parts of the points of claim is not proceeded with; paragraphs remain in the pleadings.
  • Direction for expert evidence remains in place.