Edengate Homes (Butley Hall) Ltd, Re [2022] EWCA Civ 626 (09 May 2022)

Edengate Homes (Butley Hall) Ltd, Re [2022] EWCA Civ 626 (09 May 2022)

Mrs Lock did not have standing to challenge the assignment because her interest as a defendant was not aligned with the interests of creditors as a class, and there was no evidence she would have made a better offer than Manolete. The liquidator's decision was not perverse as he had no reason to believe a better...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Civ 626
Parties
Appellant/applicant: Adele Lock; Respondent: Paul Stanley (in his capacity as liquidator); Respondent: Edengate Homes (Butley Hall) Limited (in liquidation)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Liquidator's Powers, Assignment of Claims, Standing of Creditors, Section 168(5) Insolvency Act 1986, Perversity Test for Liquidator's Decisions
Insolvency Company Law Civil Procedure Liquidator's Powers Assignment of Claims Standing of Creditors Section 168(5) Insolvency Act 1986 Perversity Test for Liquidator's Decisions

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adele Lock

Appellant/applicant

Paul Stanley (in his capacity as liquidator)

Respondent

Edengate Homes (Butley Hall) Limited (in liquidation)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mrs Lock had standing under section 168(5) of the Insolvency Act 1986 to challenge the liquidator's assignment of claims
  2. 2 Whether the liquidator's assignment of claims to Manolete Partners Plc was perverse

Ratio Decidendi

Mrs Lock did not have standing to challenge the assignment because her interest as a defendant was not aligned with the interests of creditors as a class, and there was no evidence she would have made a better offer than Manolete. The liquidator's decision was not perverse as he had no reason to believe a better offer was available and had acted reasonably in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; no order setting aside the assignment to Manolete Partners Plc