Whalley v Doney & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 1198 (09 July 2004)

Whalley v Doney & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 1198 (09 July 2004)

The trial judge's findings that the company was insolvent and that Mr Doney diverted substantial sale proceeds to himself constituted misfeasance and breach of fiduciary duty; there was no basis for appellate interference with the judge's factual findings or exercise of discretion under section 727.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1198
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Alan Peter Whalley (Liquidator of MDA Investment Management Limited); Respondent/applicant: George Malcolm Doney; Respondent/applicant: Malcolm Doney Associates (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division), Post Trial
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Misfeasance, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Unlawful Preferences, Transaction at Undervalue, Relief Under Section 727
Company Law Insolvency Law Misfeasance Breach of Fiduciary Duty Unlawful Preferences Transaction at Undervalue Relief Under Section 727

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Peter Whalley (Liquidator of MDA Investment Management Limited)

Applicant/respondent

George Malcolm Doney

Respondent/applicant

Malcolm Doney Associates (A Firm)

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division), Post Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the division of proceeds of sale constituted misfeasance or breach of fiduciary duty
  2. 2 Whether payments to Mr Doney were unlawful preferences
  3. 3 Whether relief under section 727 should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's findings that the company was insolvent and that Mr Doney diverted substantial sale proceeds to himself constituted misfeasance and breach of fiduciary duty; there was no basis for appellate interference with the judge's factual findings or exercise of discretion under section 727.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused with costs
  • Costs assessed in the sum of £5,000