Holdenhurst Securities Plc v Cohen & Anor [2000] EWHC 226 (Comm) (31 March 2000)

Holdenhurst Securities Plc v Cohen & Anor [2000] EWHC 226 (Comm) (31 March 2000)

Relief under s.7(3) is independent of s.11(3)(d); where a complaint against supervisors is arguable, it cannot be struck out merely because an alternative route exists under s.11(3)(d). The applications are distinct and should be determined on their merits.

Citation
[2000] EWHC 226 (Comm)
Parties
Applicant: Holdenhurst Securities Plc; Respondent: Mr. Malcolm Cohen; Respondent: Mr. Raymond Hocking
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out or Stay Parts of an Application to Companies Registrar / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application to strike out or stay paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Holdenhurst Application refused.
Legal Topics
Administration Order, Company Voluntary Arrangement, Supervisor's Duties, Leave to Commence Proceedings, Strike Out Application
Insolvency Company Law Administration Order Company Voluntary Arrangement Supervisor's Duties Leave to Commence Proceedings Strike Out Application

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Holdenhurst Securities Plc

Applicant

Mr. Malcolm Cohen

Respondent

Mr. Raymond Hocking

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Strike Out or Stay Parts of an Application to Companies Registrar / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Holdenhurst Application should be struck out or stayed
  2. 2 Whether relief under s.7(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 is independent of s.11(3)(d)
  3. 3 Whether the Respondents' refusal to admit Holdenhurst's claims is a decision or omission under s.7(3)

Ratio Decidendi

Relief under s.7(3) is independent of s.11(3)(d); where a complaint against supervisors is arguable, it cannot be struck out merely because an alternative route exists under s.11(3)(d). The applications are distinct and should be determined on their merits.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out or stay paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Holdenhurst Application refused.

Orders

  • Holdenhurst to disclose the identities of persons funding the litigation, subject to counsel's observations.