BWCI Pension Trustees Ltd v Hurst House Holdings Ltd & Ors [2008] EWHC 2262 (Ch) (13 May 2008)

BWCI Pension Trustees Ltd v Hurst House Holdings Ltd & Ors [2008] EWHC 2262 (Ch) (13 May 2008)

The application to vary the injunction is refused because the urgency claimed by the applicants is not substantiated; the necessary funds for the transaction cannot be raised imminently, and the sale required to enable the transaction is not sufficiently advanced. The injunction will continue until trial or further order.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 2262 (Ch)
Parties
Petitioner: BWCI Pension Trustees Limited; First Respondent: Hurst House Holdings Limited; Second Respondent: Matthew R Roberts; Third Respondent: Neil Morrisey; Fourth Respondent: Hospitality Holdings International Limited; Fifth Respondent: Hurst House Larne Limited; Sixth Respondent: Hurst House Astwick Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Unfair Prejudice Petition Under Companies Act / Interlocutory Application to Vary Injunction
Outcome
Application to vary injunction refused; injunction to continue until trial or further order.
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice, Injunctions, Shareholder Rights, Asset Disposition During Winding Up, Section 127 Companies Act
Company Law Insolvency Unfair Prejudice Injunctions Shareholder Rights Asset Disposition During Winding Up Section 127 Companies Act

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BWCI Pension Trustees Limited

Petitioner

Hurst House Holdings Limited

First Respondent

Matthew R Roberts

Second Respondent

Neil Morrisey

Third Respondent

Hospitality Holdings International Limited

Fourth Respondent

Hurst House Larne Limited

Fifth Respondent

Hurst House Astwick Limited

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Prejudice Petition Under Companies Act / Interlocutory Application to Vary Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to vary or discharge an injunction restraining asset transfers pending determination of an unfair prejudice petition
  2. 2 Whether urgency justifies immediate variation of injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vary the injunction is refused because the urgency claimed by the applicants is not substantiated; the necessary funds for the transaction cannot be raised imminently, and the sale required to enable the transaction is not sufficiently advanced. The injunction will continue until trial or further order.

Court Disposition

Application to vary injunction refused; injunction to continue until trial or further order.

Orders

  • Injunction restraining asset transfers continues until trial or further order.
  • Directions to be given for further evidence and urgent listing of combined hearing of petition and application to vary injunction.