Broadside Colours And Chemicals Ltd, Re (No 2) [2012] EWHC 195 (Ch) (20 February 2012)

Broadside Colours And Chemicals Ltd, Re (No 2) [2012] EWHC 195 (Ch) (20 February 2012)

James Button had realistic prospects of defending the claim, was not aware of the proceedings until September 2011, and although service was valid under CPR 6.9, the court's discretion under Insolvency Rule 7.47(1) justified setting aside the judgment against him.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 195 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant: Christopher John Brown; Applicant: Andrew Johnson Mayberry; Respondent: Geoffrey Button; Respondent: James David Button; Respondent: Catherine Valerie Button
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Application (misfeasance Proceedings) / Application to Set Aside Judgment
Outcome
Judgment against James Button set aside
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Directors' Duties, Unlawful Loans to Directors, Limitation Periods, Setting Aside Judgments, Relief for Breach of Duty
Insolvency Company Law Civil Procedure Service of Process Directors' Duties Unlawful Loans to Directors Limitation Periods Setting Aside Judgments +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher John Brown

Applicant

Andrew Johnson Mayberry

Applicant

Geoffrey Button

Respondent

James David Button

Respondent

Catherine Valerie Button

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Insolvency Application (misfeasance Proceedings) / Application to Set Aside Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service on James Button was valid under CPR 6.9
  2. 2 Whether judgment against James Button should be set aside under Insolvency Rule 7.47(1)
  3. 3 Whether James Button has a realistic prospect of defending the misfeasance claim

Ratio Decidendi

James Button had realistic prospects of defending the claim, was not aware of the proceedings until September 2011, and although service was valid under CPR 6.9, the court's discretion under Insolvency Rule 7.47(1) justified setting aside the judgment against him.

Court Disposition

Judgment against James Button set aside

Orders

  • Order of 4 May 2011 against James Button set aside
  • Two charging orders against James Button set aside