Oyston & Anor v Rubin & Ano [2020] EWHC 1726 (Ch) (19 June 2020)

Oyston & Anor v Rubin & Ano [2020] EWHC 1726 (Ch) (19 June 2020)

There were material changes of circumstance justifying variation of the previous order, including the issuance of the receivers' declaration application and the availability of Mr Justice Marcus Smith. Given the judge's detailed knowledge of the receivership and the complexity of the issues, it is a more effective use of judicial resources for him to determine the claim. The Chancery Guide does not preclude the Master from making such an order, and the claimants' arguments to the contrary have no real prospect of success.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1726 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Owen Oyston; Claimant: Blackpool Football Club (Properties) Limited; Defendant: David Rubin; Defendant: Paul Cooper
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (chancery Division, Business List) / Directions Hearing on Allocation of Judge for Disposal Hearing
Outcome
Order varied; claim to be case managed and disposed of by Mr Justice Marcus Smith; claimants to pay costs of the hearing.
Legal Topics
Receivership, Unfair Prejudice Petition, Case Management, Judicial Allocation, Enforcement of Judgment, Costs
Civil Procedure Company Law Insolvency Receivership Unfair Prejudice Petition Case Management Judicial Allocation Enforcement of Judgment +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Owen Oyston

Claimant

Blackpool Football Club (Properties) Limited

Claimant

David Rubin

Defendant

Paul Cooper

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (chancery Division, Business List) / Directions Hearing on Allocation of Judge for Disposal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order of Deputy Master Arkush dated 12 May 2020 should be varied to list the claim for disposal before Mr Justice Marcus Smith rather than a Master
  2. 2 Whether there has been a material change of circumstances justifying variation of the previous order
  3. 3 Whether the claim should be determined by a Master or by Mr Justice Marcus Smith

Ratio Decidendi

There were material changes of circumstance justifying variation of the previous order, including the issuance of the receivers' declaration application and the availability of Mr Justice Marcus Smith. Given the judge's detailed knowledge of the receivership and the complexity of the issues, it is a more effective use of judicial resources for him to determine the claim. The Chancery Guide does not preclude the Master from making such an order, and the claimants' arguments to the contrary have no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Order varied; claim to be case managed and disposed of by Mr Justice Marcus Smith; claimants to pay costs of the hearing.

Orders

  • Claim to be further case managed and tried or disposed of by Mr Justice Marcus Smith.
  • Parties to seek listing of the disposal hearing before Mr Justice Marcus Smith as soon as practicable.