London Capital & Finance Plc & Ors v Spencer Golding

London Capital & Finance Plc & Ors v Spencer Golding

Extension of receivership and variation of delivery period are justified due to risk of asset dissipation, delay in criminal restraint order, and enforcement difficulties; third party interests are protected by liberty to apply and CPR rule 40.9.

Parties
Claimant: London Capital & Finance Plc (in administration); Claimant: Finbarr O’Connell, Adam Stephens, Henry Shinners, Colin Hardman and Geoffrey Rowley (joint administrators of London Capital & Finance Plc); Claimant: London Oil & Gas Limited (in administration); Claimant: Finbarr O’Connell, Adam Stephens, Colin Hardman and Lane Bednash (joint administrators of London Oil & Gas Limited); Defendant: Spencer Golding
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Receivership, Freezing Orders, Variation of Orders, Third Party Rights
Trusts Insolvency Civil Procedure Receivership Freezing Orders Variation of Orders Third Party Rights

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Capital & Finance Plc (in administration)

Claimant

Finbarr O’Connell, Adam Stephens, Henry Shinners, Colin Hardman and Geoffrey Rowley (joint administrators of London Capital & Finance Plc)

Claimant

London Oil & Gas Limited (in administration)

Claimant

Finbarr O’Connell, Adam Stephens, Colin Hardman and Lane Bednash (joint administrators of London Oil & Gas Limited)

Claimant

Spencer Golding

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether receivership should be extended to all assets in Schedule 2
  2. 2 Whether the December order should be varied to reduce the period for delivery up of assets
  3. 3 Protection of third party interests

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of receivership and variation of delivery period are justified due to risk of asset dissipation, delay in criminal restraint order, and enforcement difficulties; third party interests are protected by liberty to apply and CPR rule 40.9.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • Receivership extended to all assets in Schedule 2 to the December order
  • Variation of December order: fourth defendant required to deliver up assets within one working day of variation of criminal restraint order