Horler v Rubin & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 4 (18 January 2012)
Consent given by a proxy-holder at a creditors' meeting is binding on the principal unless expressly restricted; therefore, Mr Horler is treated as having consented to the application of the Jamestown monies, precluding any valid complaint against Mr Rubin for their application.
- Citation
- [2012] EWCA Civ 4
- Parties
- Claimant / Respondent: Daniel Thomas Brian Horler; Defendants / Appellants: David Rubin & Ors
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 18 January 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From Chancery Division (high Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Trustee Liability, Partnership Assets, Consent Via Proxy, Application of Bankruptcy Proceeds
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Daniel Thomas Brian Horler
Claimant / Respondent
David Rubin & Ors
Defendants / Appellants
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Chancery Division (high Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Mr Rubin was personally liable for misapplication of proceeds from sale of partnership assets
- 2 Effect of proxy consent at creditors' meeting
- 3 Application of Partnership Act 1890 to partnership assets in bankruptcy
Ratio Decidendi
Consent given by a proxy-holder at a creditors' meeting is binding on the principal unless expressly restricted; therefore, Mr Horler is treated as having consented to the application of the Jamestown monies, precluding any valid complaint against Mr Rubin for their application.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Mr Horler's complaint dismissed; Mr Rubin not personally liable for application of Jamestown monies
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment