Peters (The Liquidator of Automold Ltd) v Menzies & Ors

Peters (The Liquidator of Automold Ltd) v Menzies & Ors

The judge declined to proceed with the strike out application because striking out the impugned paragraphs would not obviate the necessity for a trial or substantially reduce its burden, as the same evidence would be explored regardless. The expert evidence direction remains appropriate.

Parties
Claimant: Andrew Philip Peters (The Liquidator of Automold Limited) (In Liquidation); Defendants: Andrew Michael Menzies & Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application (strike Out)
Outcome
Strike out application declined; court will not proceed with argument.
Legal Topics
Administrators' Duties, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Negligence, Strike Out Applications
Insolvency Company Law Administrators' Duties Breach of Fiduciary Duty Negligence Strike Out Applications

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Philip Peters (The Liquidator of Automold Limited) (In Liquidation)

Claimant

Andrew Michael Menzies & Others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application (strike Out)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraphs relating to pre-appointment conduct and negligence should be struck out
  2. 2 Whether striking out would obviate the necessity for or substantially reduce the burden of trial
  3. 3 Whether expert evidence direction should be revisited

Ratio Decidendi

The judge declined to proceed with the strike out application because striking out the impugned paragraphs would not obviate the necessity for a trial or substantially reduce its burden, as the same evidence would be explored regardless. The expert evidence direction remains appropriate.

Court Disposition

Strike out application declined; court will not proceed with argument.

Orders

  • Direction for expert evidence remains appropriate and is not revisited.
  • Separate argument relating to administrators’ remuneration to be heard.