Horler v Rubin & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 4 (18 January 2012)

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Thomas Brian Horler

Claimant / Respondent

David Rubin & Ors

Defendants / Appellants

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Chancery Division (high Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment

  1. 1 Whether Mr Rubin was personally liable for misapplication of proceeds from sale of partnership assets
  2. 2 Effect of proxy consent at creditors' meeting
  3. 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