Beckenham MC Ltd v Centralex Ltd & Ors [2004] EWHC 1287 (Ch) (10 June 2004)

Beckenham MC Ltd v Centralex Ltd & Ors [2004] EWHC 1287 (Ch) (10 June 2004)

The transfers of Units 29 and 30 were transactions at an undervalue made for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of the applicant as a creditor, and the existence of the trust did not preclude the applicant from being prejudiced or from obtaining relief under section 423. The applicant is entitled in principle to have the transfers set aside and to seek a charging order.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1287 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant: Beckenham M. C. Limited; First Respondent: Centralex Limited; Second Respondent: Karlton London Limited; Third Respondent: London Congress Limited; Fourth Respondent: Mortimer Corporation Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 / Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Application granted in principle; relief under section 423 to be given; form of order to be determined after further submissions.
Legal Topics
Transactions at an Undervalue, Fraudulent Conveyance, Charging Orders, Trustee Liability, Enforcement of Judgments
Insolvency Law Trusts Law Property Law Transactions at an Undervalue Fraudulent Conveyance Charging Orders Trustee Liability Enforcement of Judgments

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beckenham M. C. Limited

Applicant

Centralex Limited

First Respondent

Karlton London Limited

Second Respondent

London Congress Limited

Third Respondent

Mortimer Corporation Limited

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 / Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfers of property were transactions at an undervalue under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether the transfers were made for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of a creditor or prejudicing a creditor
  3. 3 Whether the existence of a trust defeats the applicant's claim to relief under section 423

Ratio Decidendi

The transfers of Units 29 and 30 were transactions at an undervalue made for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of the applicant as a creditor, and the existence of the trust did not preclude the applicant from being prejudiced or from obtaining relief under section 423. The applicant is entitled in principle to have the transfers set aside and to seek a charging order.

Court Disposition

Application granted in principle; relief under section 423 to be given; form of order to be determined after further submissions.

Orders

  • Transfers of Units 29 and 30 to be set aside under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986, subject to further submissions on the form of order.
  • Applicant entitled to seek a charging order over Units 29 and 30.