Poole v Hinton & Anor [2019] EWHC 2331 (Ch) (29 August 2019)

Poole v Hinton & Anor [2019] EWHC 2331 (Ch) (29 August 2019)

The assignment to Mr Carroll was not an assignment of all and any claims but only of those within the three defined classes; Mr Carroll's claim did not fall within those classes as Mr Poole was not acting as agent in the relevant transaction. The settlement agreement did not bar Mr Carroll from bringing his own claim as assignee, as the prohibition on 'assisting' others did not extend to bringing his own assigned claim.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2331 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant: Colin David Poole; 1st Respondent: Lloyd Edward Hinton (as trustee in bankruptcy of Colin David Poole); 2nd Respondent: Peter Edward Carroll
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Appeal / Trial of Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Assignment of Claims, Bankruptcy, Default Judgment, Settlement Agreement Interpretation
Insolvency Contract Company Law Assignment of Claims Bankruptcy Default Judgment Settlement Agreement Interpretation

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin David Poole

Applicant

Lloyd Edward Hinton (as trustee in bankruptcy of Colin David Poole)

1st Respondent

Peter Edward Carroll

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Appeal / Trial of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should go behind the default judgment and enquire into the validity of Mr Carroll's debt
  2. 2 The validity of the asserted assignment to Mr Carroll
  3. 3 The effect of the compromise (settlement) agreement dated June 2008 upon Mr Carroll's claim

Ratio Decidendi

The assignment to Mr Carroll was not an assignment of all and any claims but only of those within the three defined classes; Mr Carroll's claim did not fall within those classes as Mr Poole was not acting as agent in the relevant transaction. The settlement agreement did not bar Mr Carroll from bringing his own claim as assignee, as the prohibition on 'assisting' others did not extend to bringing his own assigned claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Mr Poole's appeal succeeds; Mr Carroll's claim is not validly admitted in the bankruptcy.