Rubin v Coote

Rubin v Coote

The applications for third party disclosure and access to the Land Registry Index failed because the documents sought were not relevant in the required sense to the issues before the Court of Appeal, nor necessary under CPR 31.17 or Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction. The proper mechanism for seeking such disclosure lies with the liquidator under section 236 of the Insolvency Act, and the court should not override the liquidator's discretion or use CPR 31.17 as a back door to disclosure for individual creditors.

Parties
Applicant/appellant: Michael John Coote; Respondent: Brian Henton; Respondent: Penelope-Ann Zygmant; Respondent: Lookmaster Limited; Liquidator/respondent: David Anthony Rubin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Third Party Disclosure Application in Insolvency Proceedings / Appeal Against Compromise Sanction; Interlocutory Applications for Disclosure
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Third Party Disclosure, Liquidator's Duties, Norwich Pharmacal Jurisdiction, Creditor Rights, Court's Inherent Jurisdiction
Insolvency Civil Procedure Third Party Disclosure Liquidator's Duties Norwich Pharmacal Jurisdiction Creditor Rights Court's Inherent Jurisdiction

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael John Coote

Applicant/appellant

Brian Henton

Respondent

Penelope-Ann Zygmant

Respondent

Lookmaster Limited

Respondent

David Anthony Rubin

Liquidator/respondent

Procedural Posture

Third Party Disclosure Application in Insolvency Proceedings / Appeal Against Compromise Sanction; Interlocutory Applications for Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether third party disclosure orders should be made under CPR 31.17 and/or Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction to assist a major creditor in challenging a compromise sanctioned by the court
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought are relevant and necessary to the issues before the Court of Appeal
  3. 3 Whether the court should override the liquidator's discretion in seeking further disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for third party disclosure and access to the Land Registry Index failed because the documents sought were not relevant in the required sense to the issues before the Court of Appeal, nor necessary under CPR 31.17 or Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction. The proper mechanism for seeking such disclosure lies with the liquidator under section 236 of the Insolvency Act, and the court should not override the liquidator's discretion or use CPR 31.17 as a back door to disclosure for individual creditors.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • No order for third party disclosure to Mr. Coote
  • No order for access to Land Registry Index