Gillan & Ors v HEC Enterprises Ltd & Ors [2017] EWHC 461 (Ch) (25 January 2017)

Gillan & Ors v HEC Enterprises Ltd & Ors [2017] EWHC 461 (Ch) (25 January 2017)

The court refused to re-open the judgment or admit further without prejudice material, holding that there was no waiver and that 'without prejudice save as to costs' does not extend to Berkeley Applegate remuneration applications. The judgment stands, and consequential matters will not be reconsidered based on material available but not presented at the original hearing.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 461 (Ch)
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 Law Proceedings / Post Judgment Consequential Hearing
Outcome
Application to re-open judgment refused; original judgment stands.
Legal Topics
Administration Moratorium, Permission to Continue Proceedings, Berkeley Applegate Principle, Remuneration of Administrators, Without Prejudice Privilege
Company Law Insolvency Trusts Administration Moratorium Permission to Continue Proceedings Berkeley Applegate Principle Remuneration of Administrators Without Prejudice Privilege

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 Law Proceedings / Post Judgment Consequential Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants should be granted permission to continue proceedings against companies in administration
  2. 2 Whether administrators are entitled to indemnity for remuneration, costs, and expenses under the Berkeley Applegate principle
  3. 3 Admissibility of without prejudice material in Berkeley Applegate applications

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to re-open the judgment or admit further without prejudice material, holding that there was no waiver and that 'without prejudice save as to costs' does not extend to Berkeley Applegate remuneration applications. The judgment stands, and consequential matters will not be reconsidered based on material available but not presented at the original hearing.

Court Disposition

Application to re-open judgment refused; original judgment stands.

Orders

  • No order made on second application for Berkeley Applegate indemnity; consequential matters deferred pending costs determination.