Closegate Hotel Development (Durham) Ltd & Anor v McLean & Ors

Closegate Hotel Development (Durham) Ltd & Anor v McLean & Ors

The Companies failed to establish any clear and unequivocal representation by the Bank that would found a promissory estoppel preventing enforcement of its security or appointment of administrators. The Bank's express reservation of rights and the finite, terminable stays of litigation were inconsistent with the alleged mutual suspension. No legal basis existed for restricting the Bank's enforcement rights.

Parties
Applicant: Closegate Hotel Development (Durham) Limited; Applicant: Closegate (Durham No.2) Ltd; Respondent: Joseph McLean; Respondent: David Dunckley; Respondent: Barclays Bank PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Application / Summary Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Administration Appointment, Promissory Estoppel, Floating Charge Enforcement, Directors' Authority
Insolvency Company Law Administration Appointment Promissory Estoppel Floating Charge Enforcement Directors' Authority

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Closegate Hotel Development (Durham) Limited

Applicant

Closegate (Durham No.2) Ltd

Applicant

Joseph McLean

Respondent

David Dunckley

Respondent

Barclays Bank PLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appointment of administrators by Barclays Bank PLC was invalid due to promissory estoppel
  2. 2 Whether directors had authority to challenge the appointment post-administration

Ratio Decidendi

The Companies failed to establish any clear and unequivocal representation by the Bank that would found a promissory estoppel preventing enforcement of its security or appointment of administrators. The Bank's express reservation of rights and the finite, terminable stays of litigation were inconsistent with the alleged mutual suspension. No legal basis existed for restricting the Bank's enforcement rights.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Companies’ application is dismissed.