Patley Wood Farm LLP & Ors v Kicks & Anor [2022] EWHC 3257 (Ch) (16 December 2022)

Patley Wood Farm LLP & Ors v Kicks & Anor [2022] EWHC 3257 (Ch) (16 December 2022)

The application is dismissed because there is no material change in circumstances justifying variation of the previous order under s375, and the Court of Appeal will not determine the beneficial ownership issue, which remains to be resolved in the insolvency proceedings. The Trustees in Bankruptcy should not raise their doubts before the Court of Appeal, and there is no special duty of candour requiring them to do so.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3257 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Patley Wood Farm LLP; Claimant/respondent: Lorraine Brehme; Claimant/respondent: The Chedington Court Estate Limited; Respondent/applicant: Kristina Kicks; Respondent/applicant: Blair Carnegie Nimmo
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Application / Application for Directions And/or Variation of Order
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Trustees in Bankruptcy, Directions Under Insolvency Act 1986 S303, Variation of Order Under Insolvency Act 1986 S375, Beneficial Ownership in Bankruptcy, Duty of Candour
Insolvency Law Trustees in Bankruptcy Directions Under Insolvency Act 1986 S303 Variation of Order Under Insolvency Act 1986 S375 Beneficial Ownership in Bankruptcy Duty of Candour

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patley Wood Farm LLP

Claimant/respondent

Lorraine Brehme

Claimant/respondent

The Chedington Court Estate Limited

Claimant/respondent

Kristina Kicks

Respondent/applicant

Blair Carnegie Nimmo

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Insolvency Application / Application for Directions And/or Variation of Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Trustees in Bankruptcy should be permitted to submit draft submissions to the Court of Appeal regarding doubts over beneficial ownership of property
  2. 2 Whether the court should vary its previous order or give directions under s303 or s375 of the Insolvency Act 1986
  3. 3 Whether there is a duty of candour requiring the Trustees to raise doubts about the validity of transactions

Ratio Decidendi

The application is dismissed because there is no material change in circumstances justifying variation of the previous order under s375, and the Court of Appeal will not determine the beneficial ownership issue, which remains to be resolved in the insolvency proceedings. The Trustees in Bankruptcy should not raise their doubts before the Court of Appeal, and there is no special duty of candour requiring them to do so.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for directions or variation of order refused
  • Costs question adjourned