Raiffeisenlandesbank Oberösterreich AG v Meyden

Raiffeisenlandesbank Oberösterreich AG v Meyden

The appeal court refused to allow the respondent to argue the COMI factual point due to lack of respondent's notice, absence of transcript, and prejudice to the appellant; the appeal was confined to the appellant's grounds.

Parties
Applicant/appellant: Raiffeisenlandesbank Oberösterreich AG; Respondent: Nikolaus Meyden
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Appeal / Appeal From Deputy Registrar's Decision
Outcome
Appeal confined to appellant's grounds; respondent's factual argument on COMI not allowed.
Legal Topics
Centre of Main Interests (comi), EC Insolvency Regulation, Relief From Sanctions, Respondent's Notice, Exercise of Discretion in Annulment
Insolvency Bankruptcy Jurisdiction Centre of Main Interests (comi) EC Insolvency Regulation Relief From Sanctions Respondent's Notice Exercise of Discretion in Annulment

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raiffeisenlandesbank Oberösterreich AG

Applicant/appellant

Nikolaus Meyden

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Appeal / Appeal From Deputy Registrar's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Registrar should have annulled the bankruptcy as a matter of right upon finding no jurisdiction due to COMI not being in England and Wales
  2. 2 Whether there was discretion to refuse annulment despite lack of jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the respondent could argue COMI was in England and Wales without proper procedural steps

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal court refused to allow the respondent to argue the COMI factual point due to lack of respondent's notice, absence of transcript, and prejudice to the appellant; the appeal was confined to the appellant's grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal confined to appellant's grounds; respondent's factual argument on COMI not allowed.

Orders

  • Implicit application to run COMI factual point on appeal refused.
  • No adjournment granted; respondent not allowed to adduce fresh evidence or run alternative grounds.