Hunt (As Liquidator) v Katz & Ors

Hunt (As Liquidator) v Katz & Ors

There is no reasonable requirement for the immediate production of an up-to-date list of creditors, as the applicant could have sought directions for advertisement and is already in breach of the notification duty. Any order for disclosure would place an unreasonable burden on the respondents unless the applicant bore the costs, which is just and reasonable given the exceptional circumstances that the companies had been fully wound up and dissolved before restoration.

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 Application for Delivery Up of Documents and List of Creditors
Outcome
Application for immediate disclosure refused; directions for evidence ordered; application to transfer venue refused; costs awarded against applicant.
Legal Topics
Liquidator's Duties, Restoration of Dissolved Companies, Disclosure of Documents, Costs of Compliance, Jurisdiction and Venue
Insolvency Company Law Liquidator's Duties Restoration of Dissolved Companies Disclosure of Documents Costs of Compliance Jurisdiction and Venue

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 4
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 Application for Delivery Up of Documents and List of Creditors

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether former liquidators must deliver up an up-to-date list of creditors and company records to the applicant liquidator
  2. 2 Whether costs of compliance should be borne by the applicant or respondents
  3. 3 Whether the application should be transferred from Manchester to London

Ratio Decidendi

There is no reasonable requirement for the immediate production of an up-to-date list of creditors, as the applicant could have sought directions for advertisement and is already in breach of the notification duty. Any order for disclosure would place an unreasonable burden on the respondents unless the applicant bore the costs, which is just and reasonable given the exceptional circumstances that the companies had been fully wound up and dissolved before restoration.

Court Disposition

Application for immediate disclosure refused; directions for evidence ordered; application to transfer venue refused; costs awarded against applicant.

Orders

  • Respondents to have two thirds of the costs of the hearing, summarily assessed at £10,000 for the first respondent and £5,333 for the second and third respondents, to be paid personally by the applicant.