Goel & Anor v Grant & Anor (As Joint Administrators of Meem SL Ltd) & Anor [2017] EWHC 2688 (Ch) (30 October 2017)

Goel & Anor v Grant & Anor (As Joint Administrators of Meem SL Ltd) & Anor [2017] EWHC 2688 (Ch) (30 October 2017)

No binding contract was formed as correspondence was impliedly subject to contract and essential terms were not sufficiently agreed; administrators' decision to auction the claim was commercially justified and did not constitute unfair harm under paragraph 74, as it provided certainty and was not perverse or discriminatory.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2688 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant: Anil Goel; Applicant: Sushil Gupta; Respondent: Stephen Grant; Respondent: Anthony Cork; Respondent: Kelly Sumner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Application in Administration Proceedings / Judgment on Application to Restrain Sale of Company Claim by Auction
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Administrator Powers, Assignment of Claims, Unfair Harm Under Insolvency Act, Contract Formation, Auction of Company Assets
Insolvency Company Law Contract Law Administrator Powers Assignment of Claims Unfair Harm Under Insolvency Act Contract Formation Auction of Company Assets

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anil Goel

Applicant

Sushil Gupta

Applicant

Stephen Grant

Respondent

Anthony Cork

Respondent

Kelly Sumner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application in Administration Proceedings / Judgment on Application to Restrain Sale of Company Claim by Auction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether administrators are contractually bound to assign company's claim to applicants
  2. 2 Whether proposed auction sale of claim causes unfair harm under paragraph 74 of Schedule B1 to Insolvency Act 1986

Ratio Decidendi

No binding contract was formed as correspondence was impliedly subject to contract and essential terms were not sufficiently agreed; administrators' decision to auction the claim was commercially justified and did not constitute unfair harm under paragraph 74, as it provided certainty and was not perverse or discriminatory.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to restrain administrators from auctioning claim dismissed
  • Directions for costs and consequential matters to be heard on a later date