McCallum-Toppin & Anor v McCallum-Toppin & Ors [2018] EWHC 1562 (Ch) (21 June 2018)

McCallum-Toppin & Anor v McCallum-Toppin & Ors [2018] EWHC 1562 (Ch) (21 June 2018)

The petitioners now have standing under s.994(2) Companies Act 2006 as both are personal representatives of the deceased shareholder following the recent court order. The late amendment to the petition is permitted as the procedural defect has been remedied, there is no prejudice to the respondents that cannot be addressed, and the trial date is not lost.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1562 (Ch)
Parties
Petitioner: Lucy Jane McCallum-Toppin; Petitioner: Julie Bryan; First Respondent: Alistair Bruce McCallum-Toppin; Second Respondent: Allan Andrew McCallum-Toppin; Third Respondent: Bertha Anne McCallum-Toppin; Fourth Respondent: AMT Coffee Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Unfair Prejudice Petition Under Companies Act 2006 S.994 / Application to Re Re Amend Petition at Outset of Trial
Outcome
Application to re-re-amend petition granted
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice, Standing of Personal Representatives, Amendment of Pleadings, Transmission of Shares, Civil Procedure Rules
Company Law Insolvency Trusts and Estates Unfair Prejudice Standing of Personal Representatives Amendment of Pleadings Transmission of Shares Civil Procedure Rules

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucy Jane McCallum-Toppin

Petitioner

Julie Bryan

Petitioner

Alistair Bruce McCallum-Toppin

First Respondent

Allan Andrew McCallum-Toppin

Second Respondent

Bertha Anne McCallum-Toppin

Third Respondent

AMT Coffee Limited

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Prejudice Petition Under Companies Act 2006 S.994 / Application to Re Re Amend Petition at Outset of Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioners have standing to bring an unfair prejudice petition under s.994 Companies Act 2006 as personal representatives or trustees of a deceased shareholder's estate
  2. 2 Whether the petition should be further amended to reflect the current status of the petitioners as personal representatives
  3. 3 Whether the late amendment should be permitted

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioners now have standing under s.994(2) Companies Act 2006 as both are personal representatives of the deceased shareholder following the recent court order. The late amendment to the petition is permitted as the procedural defect has been remedied, there is no prejudice to the respondents that cannot be addressed, and the trial date is not lost.

Court Disposition

Application to re-re-amend petition granted

Orders

  • Petitioners granted permission to re-re-amend the petition in the form presented to the court