Manolete Partners Plc v David Coleman & Ors.

Manolete Partners Plc v David Coleman & Ors.

The court found that Mr Coleman rebutted the statutory presumption of desire to prefer, as he genuinely believed all creditors would be paid and did not contemplate insolvent liquidation at the time of the payments. The payments to Mr Coleman and FCTL were not preferences. In contrast, Mr Thacker provided no evidence to rebut the presumption, and the extinguishing of his loan account was a preference under s.239 Insolvency Act 1986.

Parties
Applicant: Manolete Partners Plc; 1st Respondent: David Coleman; 2nd Respondent: Simon Thacker; 3rd Respondent: Funding Circle Trustee Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Application / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Application against Mr Coleman dismissed; application against Mr Thacker allowed.
Legal Topics
Preference Claims, Director's Loan Accounts, Connected Persons, Statutory Presumptions, Liquidation, Assignment of Claims
Insolvency Company Law Preference Claims Director's Loan Accounts Connected Persons Statutory Presumptions Liquidation Assignment of Claims

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manolete Partners Plc

Applicant

David Coleman

1st Respondent

Simon Thacker

2nd Respondent

Funding Circle Trustee Limited

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Insolvency Application / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payments and account debits constituted preferences under s.239 Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether the statutory presumption of desire to prefer was rebutted by Mr Coleman
  3. 3 Whether the extinguishing of Mr Thacker's loan account was a preference

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr Coleman rebutted the statutory presumption of desire to prefer, as he genuinely believed all creditors would be paid and did not contemplate insolvent liquidation at the time of the payments. The payments to Mr Coleman and FCTL were not preferences. In contrast, Mr Thacker provided no evidence to rebut the presumption, and the extinguishing of his loan account was a preference under s.239 Insolvency Act 1986.

Court Disposition

Application against Mr Coleman dismissed; application against Mr Thacker allowed.

Orders

  • Judgment for the applicant against Mr Thacker in the sum of £33,542.20.
  • Application against Mr Coleman dismissed.