Hunt (Liquidator of Ovenden Colbert Printers Ltd) v Hosking & Ors

Hunt (Liquidator of Ovenden Colbert Printers Ltd) v Hosking & Ors

The payments made by Mr Temple to Mr Hosking were not transactions entered into by Ovenden within the meaning of s.238 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Without a relevant transaction entered into by the company, the requirements of s.238 and s.241 cannot be satisfied, and the claim must fail.

Parties
Appellant: Stephen John Hunt; Respondent: Andrew Hosking; Respondent: Lorraine Hosking; Respondent: Johannah McSweeney; Respondent: Carol Hosking; Respondent: Beth Rees; Respondent: Joanne Temple; Respondent: Phillip Thompson; Respondent: Leonard Colbert; Respondent: Natalie Waugh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Strike Out Order
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Transactions at Undervalue, Liquidator Powers, Third Party Liability, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Insolvency Company Law Transactions at Undervalue Liquidator Powers Third Party Liability Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen John Hunt

Appellant

Andrew Hosking

Respondent

Lorraine Hosking

Respondent

Johannah McSweeney

Respondent

Carol Hosking

Respondent

Beth Rees

Respondent

Joanne Temple

Respondent

Phillip Thompson

Respondent

Leonard Colbert

Respondent

Natalie Waugh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Strike Out Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payments made by Mr Temple to Mr Hosking constituted transactions at an undervalue entered into by Ovenden within the meaning of ss.238 and 241 of the Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether the payments could be impugned under s.238 as transactions entered into by the company
  3. 3 Whether an order could be made against Mr Hosking as a third party under s.241

Ratio Decidendi

The payments made by Mr Temple to Mr Hosking were not transactions entered into by Ovenden within the meaning of s.238 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Without a relevant transaction entered into by the company, the requirements of s.238 and s.241 cannot be satisfied, and the claim must fail.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim against Mr Hosking under ss.238 and 241 struck out
  • No further directions for trial