Lomax Leisure Ltd v Miller & Anor

Lomax Leisure Ltd v Miller & Anor

The liquidator was entitled to cancel the dividend under Insolvency Rule 11.4 because an application challenging the rejection of a proof of debt was made within the relevant four-month period, and the Rule is not limited to the period before declaration or cheque issuance.

Parties
Appellant: Lomax Leisure Limited; Respondent: Miller & Another
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Liquidation, Dividend Cancellation, Creditor Proof of Debt, Statutory Interpretation
Insolvency Law Liquidation Dividend Cancellation Creditor Proof of Debt Statutory Interpretation

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lomax Leisure Limited

Appellant

Miller & Another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the liquidator was entitled to cancel a dividend after issuing cheques but before payment, following a creditor's application disputing rejection of proof of debt
  2. 2 Proper interpretation of Insolvency Rules 11.2, 11.4, and 11.5 regarding timing and power to postpone or cancel dividends

Ratio Decidendi

The liquidator was entitled to cancel the dividend under Insolvency Rule 11.4 because an application challenging the rejection of a proof of debt was made within the relevant four-month period, and the Rule is not limited to the period before declaration or cheque issuance.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed