Berntsen & Anor v Tait & Anor

Berntsen & Anor v Tait & Anor

The appellants had no real prospect of success on any claim against the administrators. The evidence showed no available funding sources, no breach of duty by the administrators, and no evidential basis for undervalue or conspiracy claims. The administrators acted within their contractual and statutory duties, and the claims were previously litigated or unviable. There was no compelling reason for a trial.

Parties
Appellant: Innes Keochan Berntsen; Appellant: Christopher Richardson; Respondent: Matthew Tait; Respondent: Sarah Rayment
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in the High Court, Chancery Division, Companies Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Administrators' Duties, Conflict of Interest, Sale at Undervalue, Creditor/member Remedies
Insolvency Company Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Administrators' Duties Conflict of Interest Sale at Undervalue Creditor/member Remedies

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Innes Keochan Berntsen

Appellant

Christopher Richardson

Appellant

Matthew Tait

Respondent

Sarah Rayment

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in the High Court, Chancery Division, Companies Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary dismissal of claims against administrators was appropriate under CPR 24.2
  2. 2 Whether administrators breached duties to LLP members/creditors under Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986
  3. 3 Whether there was a viable claim for sale of the hotel at an undervalue or conspiracy to defraud

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants had no real prospect of success on any claim against the administrators. The evidence showed no available funding sources, no breach of duty by the administrators, and no evidential basis for undervalue or conspiracy claims. The administrators acted within their contractual and statutory duties, and the claims were previously litigated or unviable. There was no compelling reason for a trial.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted but appeals dismissed
  • Summary judgment for respondents on all claims