Lomax Leisure Ltd v Miller & Anor [2007] EWHC 2508 (Ch) (12 October 2007)

Lomax Leisure Ltd v Miller & Anor [2007] EWHC 2508 (Ch) (12 October 2007)

Liquidators owed no personal obligation to pay the dividend to creditors; no personal claim for damages or compensation lies for non-payment. The cheques were not supported by consideration as there was no antecedent debt or liability. Even if paid, restitution would be available due to mistake. The proper remedy for non-payment is by court order, not personal action.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 2508 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Lomax Leisure Limited (in liquidation); Defendant: Nicholas John Miller; Defendant: Timothy James Bramston
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Liquidation Dividends, Liquidator's Duties, Bills of Exchange, Restitution, Finality of Dividend, Members' Voluntary Liquidation
Insolvency Company Law Banking Law Liquidation Dividends Liquidator's Duties Bills of Exchange Restitution Finality of Dividend +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lomax Leisure Limited (in liquidation)

Claimant

Nicholas John Miller

Defendant

Timothy James Bramston

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether liquidators are personally liable to pay declared dividends to creditors in a members' voluntary liquidation
  2. 2 Whether creditors have a personal claim for damages or compensation for non-payment of declared dividends
  3. 3 Whether cheques issued by liquidators in payment of dividends are enforceable as bills of exchange

Ratio Decidendi

Liquidators owed no personal obligation to pay the dividend to creditors; no personal claim for damages or compensation lies for non-payment. The cheques were not supported by consideration as there was no antecedent debt or liability. Even if paid, restitution would be available due to mistake. The proper remedy for non-payment is by court order, not personal action.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed in full
  • Claimant to pay Defendants' costs to be assessed on the standard basis in default of agreement