Rubin v Coote [2010] EWHC 3017 (Ch) (24 November 2010)

Rubin v Coote [2010] EWHC 3017 (Ch) (24 November 2010)

The requested disclosure is not relevant or necessary for the issues before the Court of Appeal, which are limited to reviewing the judge's discretion based on materials available at the time of the compromise. CPR 31.17 and Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction do not permit disclosure to circumvent the Liquidator's statutory powers or to enable a creditor to step into the Liquidator's role. The applications fail both the relevance and necessity tests and are refused.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 3017 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: David Anthony Rubin; Respondent/applicant: Michael John Coote; Third Party Respondent: Brian Henton; Third Party Respondent: Penelope-Ann Zygmant; Third Party Respondent: Lookmaster Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Disclosure Application in Insolvency Appeal / Judgment on Applications for Third Party Disclosure and Access to Land Registry Index
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
Third Party Disclosure, Liquidator's Duties, Norwich Pharmacal Orders, Asset Tracing, Creditor Rights
Insolvency Civil Procedure Company Law Third Party Disclosure Liquidator's Duties Norwich Pharmacal Orders Asset Tracing Creditor Rights

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Anthony Rubin

Claimant

Michael John Coote

Respondent/applicant

Brian Henton

Third Party Respondent

Penelope-Ann Zygmant

Third Party Respondent

Lookmaster Limited

Third Party Respondent

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Disclosure Application in Insolvency Appeal / Judgment on Applications for Third Party Disclosure and Access to Land Registry Index

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether third party disclosure should be ordered under CPR 31.17 or Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether access to Land Registry Index should be granted to assist enforcement of judgment
  3. 3 Whether the requested disclosure is relevant and necessary for the appeal against sanction of compromise in liquidation

Ratio Decidendi

The requested disclosure is not relevant or necessary for the issues before the Court of Appeal, which are limited to reviewing the judge's discretion based on materials available at the time of the compromise. CPR 31.17 and Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction do not permit disclosure to circumvent the Liquidator's statutory powers or to enable a creditor to step into the Liquidator's role. The applications fail both the relevance and necessity tests and are refused.

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

  • Application for third party disclosure under CPR 31.17 dismissed
  • Application for access to Land Registry Index dismissed