Zelouf v Khanna & Anor

Zelouf v Khanna & Anor

The District Judge was correct to limit the amendment to claims under section 262 of the Insolvency Act 1986, as the procedural history and parties' submissions indicated that only such claims were contemplated. The order was consistent with the judgment and post-judgment discussion. There was no legitimate claim outside section 262, and the costs and debarment orders were reasonable exercises of judicial discretion.

Parties
Appellant: Michael Zelouf; First Respondent: Vipin Khanna; Second Respondent: Christopher Herron
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Individual Voluntary Arrangement, Amendment of Pleadings, Costs Orders, Material Irregularity, Unfair Prejudice
Insolvency Civil Procedure Individual Voluntary Arrangement Amendment of Pleadings Costs Orders Material Irregularity Unfair Prejudice

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Zelouf

Appellant

Vipin Khanna

First Respondent

Christopher Herron

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether District Judge Bishop erred in limiting permission to amend to claims under section 262 of the Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether the order of 17 December 2014 was inconsistent with the judgment and post-judgment discussion
  3. 3 Whether Mr Zelouf had an arguable claim outside section 262

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge was correct to limit the amendment to claims under section 262 of the Insolvency Act 1986, as the procedural history and parties' submissions indicated that only such claims were contemplated. The order was consistent with the judgment and post-judgment discussion. There was no legitimate claim outside section 262, and the costs and debarment orders were reasonable exercises of judicial discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals against the 17 December 2014 and 30 June 2015 orders dismissed
  • Costs order against Mr Zelouf in the sum of £3,000 upheld