Davy v Pickering & Ors

Davy v Pickering & Ors

The court exercised its discretion under section 1032(3) Companies Act 2006 to make both the Limitation Direction and the Petition Direction, finding that Mr Davy was deprived of the opportunity to pursue his claim and winding-up petition due to the company's dissolution without proper notice, and that justice required restoring his lost opportunity, even if it might place him in a better position than he would otherwise have been.

Parties
Claimant: Graham Frank Davy; Defendant: Brian Michael Pickering; Defendant: Ann Dolores Pickering; Defendant: The Registrar of Companies; Defendant: 1000654 Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Restoration of Company to Register and Directions / Post Restoration Directions Hearing
Outcome
Directions granted
Legal Topics
Restoration of Dissolved Company, Limitation Periods, Transaction Avoidance, Winding Up, Creditor Rights
Company Law Insolvency Law Limitation Law Restoration of Dissolved Company Limitation Periods Transaction Avoidance Winding Up Creditor Rights

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graham Frank Davy

Claimant

Brian Michael Pickering

Defendant

Ann Dolores Pickering

Defendant

The Registrar of Companies

Defendant

1000654 Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Restoration of Company to Register and Directions / Post Restoration Directions Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should make a direction excluding the period of dissolution from limitation calculations
  2. 2 Whether the court should make a direction deeming a winding-up petition as presented at the date of dissolution
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was deprived of opportunity to pursue claims due to dissolution

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion under section 1032(3) Companies Act 2006 to make both the Limitation Direction and the Petition Direction, finding that Mr Davy was deprived of the opportunity to pursue his claim and winding-up petition due to the company's dissolution without proper notice, and that justice required restoring his lost opportunity, even if it might place him in a better position than he would otherwise have been.

Court Disposition

Directions granted

Orders

  • The period between the striking off of the Company and the making of the order for restoration is not to count for limitation purposes.
  • If the claimant petitions for winding up within 14 days, the petition shall be deemed presented on 20 March 2012.