Hunt (As Liquidator) v Katz & Ors [2017] EWHC 2756 (Ch) (20 October 2017)

Hunt (As Liquidator) v Katz & Ors [2017] EWHC 2756 (Ch) (20 October 2017)

No immediate order for disclosure of up-to-date creditor lists is justified; applicant failed to seek court directions for advertisement, is out of time for statutory notification, and no reasonable requirement for disclosure is demonstrated. Costs of compliance, if ordered, would be borne by applicant personally due to exceptional circumstances.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2756 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant: Stephen John Hunt; First Respondent: Stephen John Katz; Second Respondent: Brian Neil Johnson; Third Respondent: David Birne
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Application / Interlocutory Hearing on Disclosure and Directions
Outcome
Application for immediate disclosure refused; directions for evidence ordered; costs awarded against applicant.
Legal Topics
Liquidator Appointment, Restoration of Dissolved Companies, Disclosure of Records, Costs Assessment
Insolvency Company Law Liquidator Appointment Restoration of Dissolved Companies Disclosure of Records Costs Assessment

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen John Hunt

Applicant

Stephen John Katz

First Respondent

Brian Neil Johnson

Second Respondent

David Birne

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Insolvency Application / Interlocutory Hearing on Disclosure and Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether former liquidators must provide up-to-date creditor lists to new liquidator
  2. 2 Whether costs of compliance should be borne by applicant or respondents
  3. 3 Appropriate venue for further proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

No immediate order for disclosure of up-to-date creditor lists is justified; applicant failed to seek court directions for advertisement, is out of time for statutory notification, and no reasonable requirement for disclosure is demonstrated. Costs of compliance, if ordered, would be borne by applicant personally due to exceptional circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application for immediate disclosure refused; directions for evidence ordered; costs awarded against applicant.

Orders

  • Respondents entitled to two thirds of costs of today's hearing, payable personally by applicant.
  • Summary assessment: £10,000 to first respondent, £5,333 to second and third respondents.