Gillan & Ors v HEC Enterprises Ltd & Ors

Gillan & Ors v HEC Enterprises Ltd & Ors

The court refused to re-open the judgment as there was no waiver of without prejudice privilege, the material sought to be admitted was available at the original hearing but not presented, and the overriding objective favoured finality and fairness to all parties. The Berkeley Applegate principle was applied sparingly, and only certain categories of administrators' work qualified for indemnity, with others excluded.

Parties
Claimant: Ian Gillan; Claimant: Roger Glover; Claimant: Ian Paice; Claimant: Victoria Lord and Keith Glover (as Executors of the Estate of Jon Lord); Defendant: HEC Enterprises Limited (in administration); Defendant: Deep Purple (Overseas) Limited (in administration); Defendant: Mark Supperstone; Defendant: Simon Harris
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Company / Post Judgment Consequential Hearing
Outcome
Application to re-open judgment refused; no order made on second application for Berkeley Applegate indemnity.
Legal Topics
Administration, Statutory Moratorium, Berkeley Applegate Principle, Without Prejudice Privilege, Remuneration of Administrators, Costs
Insolvency Company Law Administration Statutory Moratorium Berkeley Applegate Principle Without Prejudice Privilege Remuneration of Administrators Costs

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Gillan

Claimant

Roger Glover

Claimant

Ian Paice

Claimant

Victoria Lord and Keith Glover (as Executors of the Estate of Jon Lord)

Claimant

HEC Enterprises Limited (in administration)

Defendant

Deep Purple (Overseas) Limited (in administration)

Defendant

Mark Supperstone

Defendant

Simon Harris

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Company / Post Judgment Consequential Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants should be permitted to continue proceedings against companies in administration despite statutory moratorium
  2. 2 Whether administrators are entitled to indemnity for remuneration, costs, and expenses out of trust assets under the Berkeley Applegate principle
  3. 3 Admissibility of without prejudice and without prejudice save as to costs material in Berkeley Applegate applications

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to re-open the judgment as there was no waiver of without prejudice privilege, the material sought to be admitted was available at the original hearing but not presented, and the overriding objective favoured finality and fairness to all parties. The Berkeley Applegate principle was applied sparingly, and only certain categories of administrators' work qualified for indemnity, with others excluded.

Court Disposition

Application to re-open judgment refused; no order made on second application for Berkeley Applegate indemnity.

Orders

  • Application to re-open judgment is rejected.
  • No order made on the second application for Berkeley Applegate indemnity.