Edwards & Anor v Business Environment Ltd & Ors

Edwards & Anor v Business Environment Ltd & Ors

The court lacks jurisdiction under paragraph 72 because the assets were not in the company's possession under a chattel leasing agreement; possession remained with BECSL or was transferred to subtenants. Paragraph 68 does not extend the administrator's power to dispose of assets not belonging to the company. Therefore, the application must fail.

Parties
Applicant: Nicholas Guy Edwards; Applicant: Peter Allen; Respondent: Business Environment Limited; Respondent: Business Environment Central Services Limited; Respondent: Bank of London & Middle East PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Application / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Administration, Disposal of Assets, Bailment, Jurisdiction, Balance of Convenience
Insolvency Commercial Law Administration Disposal of Assets Bailment Jurisdiction Balance of Convenience

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Guy Edwards

Applicant

Peter Allen

Applicant

Business Environment Limited

Respondent

Business Environment Central Services Limited

Respondent

Bank of London & Middle East PLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the court have jurisdiction under paragraph 72 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 to grant the application?
  2. 2 Did the assets come into the company's possession pursuant to a chattel leasing agreement?
  3. 3 Does the court have jurisdiction under paragraph 68 to grant the application?

Ratio Decidendi

The court lacks jurisdiction under paragraph 72 because the assets were not in the company's possession under a chattel leasing agreement; possession remained with BECSL or was transferred to subtenants. Paragraph 68 does not extend the administrator's power to dispose of assets not belonging to the company. Therefore, the application must fail.

Court Disposition

application dismissed