Golstein v Bishop & Anor [2016] EWHC 2187 (Ch) (02 September 2016)

Golstein v Bishop & Anor [2016] EWHC 2187 (Ch) (02 September 2016)

The applicant's claim was unliquidated and unascertained at the relevant time, as the necessary partnership accounts had not been finalised and the amount due was not established. Therefore, the chairman was correct to value the claim at £1 for voting purposes. The non-disclosure of disciplinary proceedings, while...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2187 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Joseph Golstein; Respondent: Colin Michael Arthur Bishop; Respondent: Nicholas Barnett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal (insolvency) / High Court (chancery Division) Appeal From Central London County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Individual Voluntary Arrangement (iva), Material Irregularity, Liquidated Vs Unliquidated Claims, Non Disclosure, Voting Rights in Insolvency, Challenge to Approval of IVA
Insolvency Partnership Law Individual Voluntary Arrangement (iva) Material Irregularity Liquidated Vs Unliquidated Claims Non Disclosure Voting Rights in Insolvency Challenge to Approval of IVA

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Golstein

Applicant/appellant

Colin Michael Arthur Bishop

Respondent

Nicholas Barnett

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (insolvency) / High Court (chancery Division) Appeal From Central London County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's claim was liquidated or unliquidated for voting purposes under the Insolvency Rules 1986
  2. 2 Whether non-disclosure of disciplinary proceedings by the debtor constituted a material irregularity warranting revocation of the IVA approval

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's claim was unliquidated and unascertained at the relevant time, as the necessary partnership accounts had not been finalised and the amount due was not established. Therefore, the chairman was correct to value the claim at £1 for voting purposes. The non-disclosure of disciplinary proceedings, while potentially material, would not have changed the outcome of the creditors' meeting, and thus did not warrant revocation of the IVA approval.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed