Glint Pay Ltd & Ors v Baker & Anor
The applications are otiose because the applicants' claims are based solely on the alleged invalidity of the respondents' appointments as administrators, which, if established, fall outside the scope of Schedule B1 and are not affected by discharge orders. No alternative claims based on valid appointments are...
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Applicant: Glint Pay Limited; Applicant: Glint Pay Services Limited; Applicant: Glint Pay UK Limited; Respondent: Jason Daniel Baker; Respondent: Geoffrey Paul Rowley
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 18 November 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Insolvency Application / Ruling on Applications to Vary or Rescind Discharge Orders
- Outcome
- Applications dismissed as otiose
- Legal Topics
- Administrator Discharge, Validity of Appointment, Misfeasance, Remedies Under Insolvency Act
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Glint Pay Limited
Applicant
Glint Pay Services Limited
Applicant
Glint Pay UK Limited
Applicant
Jason Daniel Baker
Respondent
Geoffrey Paul Rowley
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Application / Ruling on Applications to Vary or Rescind Discharge Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether discharge orders under paragraph 98 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 prevent claims by the applicants against the respondents as former administrators
- 2 Whether the respondents' appointments as administrators were invalid and thus outside the scope of Schedule B1
- 3 Whether alternative claims based on valid appointments are subject to discharge or the exceptions under paragraph 75 of Schedule B1
Ratio Decidendi
The applications are otiose because the applicants' claims are based solely on the alleged invalidity of the respondents' appointments as administrators, which, if established, fall outside the scope of Schedule B1 and are not affected by discharge orders. No alternative claims based on valid appointments are sufficiently pleaded to require variation or rescission of the discharge orders.
Court Disposition
Applications dismissed as otiose
Orders
- No variation or rescission of discharge orders
- Applicants' claims limited to actions outside insolvency proceedings
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment