Kevin Ley & Anor v Douglas Suttle & Anor

Kevin Ley & Anor v Douglas Suttle & Anor

Permission to amend paragraphs (1), (2)(a), and (2)(b) is granted as the amendments do not introduce new causes of action, arise out of substantially the same facts, and are within the court's discretionary jurisdiction. Permission to amend paragraph (3) to include an allegation of unlawful distribution of capital is refused as it introduces a new cause of action outside the limitation period, does not arise out of substantially the same facts, and lacks a coherent factual basis.

Parties
Applicant: Kevin Ley; Applicant: Henry Anthony Shinners; Respondent: Douglas Suttle; Respondent: Graham Reed
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Application / Ruling on Amendment Application
Outcome
Permission to amend paragraphs (1), (2)(a), and (2)(b) granted; permission to amend paragraph (3) refused.
Legal Topics
Misfeasance, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Limitation Period, Amendment of Pleadings, Unlawful Distribution of Capital
Insolvency Company Law Misfeasance Breach of Fiduciary Duty Limitation Period Amendment of Pleadings Unlawful Distribution of Capital

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Ley

Applicant

Henry Anthony Shinners

Applicant

Douglas Suttle

Respondent

Graham Reed

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Insolvency Application / Ruling on Amendment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to amend the Insolvency Act application notice to include new claims of misfeasance and breach of fiduciary duty
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments are outside the applicable limitation period
  3. 3 Whether the amendments introduce new causes of action or arise out of substantially the same facts

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend paragraphs (1), (2)(a), and (2)(b) is granted as the amendments do not introduce new causes of action, arise out of substantially the same facts, and are within the court's discretionary jurisdiction. Permission to amend paragraph (3) to include an allegation of unlawful distribution of capital is refused as it introduces a new cause of action outside the limitation period, does not arise out of substantially the same facts, and lacks a coherent factual basis.

Court Disposition

Permission to amend paragraphs (1), (2)(a), and (2)(b) granted; permission to amend paragraph (3) refused.

Orders

  • Permission to amend paragraphs (1), (2)(a), and (2)(b) of the Insolvency Act application notice granted.
  • Permission to amend paragraph (3) of the application notice refused.