Trillium (Nelson) Properties Ltd v Office Metro Ltd

Trillium (Nelson) Properties Ltd v Office Metro Ltd

Office Metro Limited did not have an 'establishment' in England at the date of the presentation of the petition because its activities in England were limited to administrative functions and occasional payments on guarantees, which did not amount to non-transitory economic activity with human means and assets as required by the Insolvency Regulation. The relevant date for determining establishment is the date of the petition, not the date of the underlying transaction.

Parties
Petitioner: Trillium (Nelson) Properties Limited; Respondent: Office Metro Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Winding Up Petition / Judgment on Petition for Winding Up Order
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Establishment Under Insolvency Regulation, Secondary Insolvency Proceedings, Centre of Main Interests (comi), Jurisdiction for Winding Up, Interpretation of 'establishment'
Insolvency Company Law Cross Border Insolvency Establishment Under Insolvency Regulation Secondary Insolvency Proceedings Centre of Main Interests (comi) Jurisdiction for Winding Up Interpretation of 'establishment'

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trillium (Nelson) Properties Limited

Petitioner

Office Metro Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Winding Up Petition / Judgment on Petition for Winding Up Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the relevant date for determining the existence of an 'establishment' under the Insolvency Regulation?
  2. 2 Did Office Metro Limited have an 'establishment' in England at the relevant time?
  3. 3 Should the court exercise discretion to allow secondary winding-up proceedings?

Ratio Decidendi

Office Metro Limited did not have an 'establishment' in England at the date of the presentation of the petition because its activities in England were limited to administrative functions and occasional payments on guarantees, which did not amount to non-transitory economic activity with human means and assets as required by the Insolvency Regulation. The relevant date for determining establishment is the date of the petition, not the date of the underlying transaction.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • The winding-up petition is dismissed.