Merrygold (Liquidator) v Bates & Anor [2009] EWHC 2837 (Ch) (11 November 2009)

Service of the section 212 application on Nicole Bates in Germany was formally defective under the Service Regulation but effective under IR 7.55, as no substantial injustice was caused and Nicole Bates waived her right to challenge service by her conduct.

Citation: [2009] EWHC 2837 (Ch)
Parties: Applicant: David Merrygold; Respondent: Philip Bates; Respondent: Nicole Bates
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 11 November 2009
Procedural Posture: Insolvency Application Under Section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 / Application to Set Aside Service and Chief Registrar's Order
Outcome: Application dismissed
Legal Topics: Service of Process, Misfeasance, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Jurisdiction, Waiver of Procedural Defects

Insolvency Company Law Civil Procedure Service of Process Misfeasance Breach of Fiduciary Duty Jurisdiction Waiver of Procedural Defects

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6

Parties

David Merrygold

Applicant

Philip Bates

Respondent

Nicole Bates

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Insolvency Application Under Section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 / Application to Set Aside Service and Chief Registrar's Order

Legal Issues

1 Whether service of proceedings on Nicole Bates in Germany was valid under Regulation (EC) No. 1393/2007 and Insolvency Rules 1986
2 Whether Chief Registrar's order should be set aside for material non-disclosure
3 Whether procedural defects in service caused substantial injustice

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

Declaration that service on Nicole Bates in January 2009 was effective under IR 7.55
Extension of time for Defence to 14 December 2009