Lanigan & Anor v Hyslop & Ors (Re Styles & Wood Group Ltd) [2026] EWHC 128 (Ch) (28 January 2026)

Lanigan & Anor v Hyslop & Ors (Re Styles & Wood Group Ltd) [2026] EWHC 128 (Ch) (28 January 2026)

The applicants, although creditors, were acting primarily in their capacity as defendants to the assigned claims and not in the interests of the creditor class. The liquidators' decision to assign the claims to KIL was not perverse or so unreasonable that no reasonable liquidator would have made it. There was no evidence of undervalue, no better offer, and the process was commercially justified given the company's insolvency and lack of resources. The application to set aside the assignment agreement fails.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 128 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant: Philip Lanigan; Applicant: Anthony Lenehan; First Respondent: Derek Hyslop & Trevor Oates (Joint Liquidators of Styles & Wood Group Limited); Second Respondent: Knaresborough Investments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Application Under the Insolvency Act 1986 / Final Hearing of Application to Set Aside Assignment Agreement
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Assignment of Claims, Liquidator's Discretion, Standing of Creditors, Section 168(5) Insolvency Act 1986, Section 112 Insolvency Act 1986
Insolvency Company Law Assignment of Claims Liquidator's Discretion Standing of Creditors Section 168(5) Insolvency Act 1986 Section 112 Insolvency Act 1986

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Lanigan

Applicant

Anthony Lenehan

Applicant

Derek Hyslop & Trevor Oates (Joint Liquidators of Styles & Wood Group Limited)

First Respondent

Knaresborough Investments Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Insolvency Application Under the Insolvency Act 1986 / Final Hearing of Application to Set Aside Assignment Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the liquidators' decision to assign claims to KIL was perverse or so unreasonable that no reasonable liquidator would have made it
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have standing under section 168(5) of the Insolvency Act 1986 to challenge the assignment agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants, although creditors, were acting primarily in their capacity as defendants to the assigned claims and not in the interests of the creditor class. The liquidators' decision to assign the claims to KIL was not perverse or so unreasonable that no reasonable liquidator would have made it. There was no evidence of undervalue, no better offer, and the process was commercially justified given the company's insolvency and lack of resources. The application to set aside the assignment agreement fails.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to set aside the assignment agreement is refused.
  • No order setting aside or modifying the assignment agreement.