Rey & Anor v FNCB Ltd

Clause 22 does not preclude secured creditors from enforcing their security; it only restricts proceedings to enforce personal liability for payment of debts.

Parties: Claimant/appellant: Joseph Manuel Rey; Claimant/appellant: Elisabeth Maria Rey; Defendant/respondent: FNCB Limited
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 13 June 2006
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome: Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics: Voluntary Arrangements, Secured Creditors, Enforcement of Security, Interpretation of Contractual Clauses

Insolvency Law Voluntary Arrangements Secured Creditors Enforcement of Security Interpretation of Contractual Clauses

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4

Parties

Joseph Manuel Rey

Claimant/appellant

Elisabeth Maria Rey

Claimant/appellant

FNCB Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether Clause 22 of the Voluntary Arrangement precludes secured creditors from enforcing their security

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 22 does not preclude secured creditors from enforcing their security; it only restricts proceedings to enforce personal liability for payment of debts.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

No permission to appeal is granted