Stone & Rolls Ltd v Micro Communications Inc

The court found that the payments made by Stone & Rolls Limited to Micro Communications Inc were not loans nor transactions at undervalue, but were made in partial discharge of SR's debt to Mercury Consultants Limited. The documentation and commercial logic supported MCI's case, and the liquidators failed to...

Source-derived case information.

Parties: Claimant: Stone & Rolls Limited (In Liquidation); Defendant: Micro Communications Inc; Applicant: Laurence Pagden; Applicant: Ian Donald Williams; Respondent: Micro Communications Inc
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 25 May 2005
Procedural Posture: Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome: Claims dismissed
Legal Topics: Debt Recovery, Transactions at Undervalue, Connected Persons, Subordination Agreements

Insolvency Company Law Debt Recovery Transactions at Undervalue Connected Persons Subordination Agreements

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13

Parties

Stone & Rolls Limited (In Liquidation)

Claimant

Micro Communications Inc

Defendant

Laurence Pagden

Applicant

Ian Donald Williams

Applicant

Micro Communications Inc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether payments made by Stone & Rolls Limited to Micro Communications Inc were loans or transactions at undervalue
2 Whether Stone & Rolls Limited and Micro Communications Inc were connected persons under insolvency law
3 Whether payments breached subordination agreements with Fortis Bank

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

Debt Claim and Undervalue Claim dismissed
No order as to repayment by Micro Communications Inc

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.