Horler v Rubin & Ors

Horler v Rubin & Ors

Permission to appeal is granted on the grounds of the authority of Mr Hogg as proxy and the reasonableness of reliance on Mr Lam's report, as there is a real prospect of success on these grounds; permission is refused on the other grounds as they lack real prospects of success.

Parties
Appellant: Horler; Respondent: Rubin & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal granted in part
Legal Topics
Authority of Proxy, Reliance on Expert Report, Remuneration of Trustee, Evaluation of Evidence
Insolvency Partnership Law Authority of Proxy Reliance on Expert Report Remuneration of Trustee Evaluation of Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Horler

Appellant

Rubin & Ors

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Hogg had authority as proxy to vote as he did
  2. 2 Whether it was reasonable for Mr Rubin to rely on Mr Lam's report
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to consider significant facts

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is granted on the grounds of the authority of Mr Hogg as proxy and the reasonableness of reliance on Mr Lam's report, as there is a real prospect of success on these grounds; permission is refused on the other grounds as they lack real prospects of success.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal granted in part

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted on the authority of Mr Hogg as proxy and on the evaluation of Mr Lam's report.
  • Permission to appeal refused on other grounds.