Hunt v Hosking & Ors [2013] EWHC 311 (Ch) (22 February 2013)

Hunt v Hosking & Ors [2013] EWHC 311 (Ch) (22 February 2013)

There was no transaction between the Company and Mr Hosking within the meaning of section 238 Insolvency Act 1986, as payments were either authorised fee disbursements or unauthorised misappropriations, not mutual dealings. Section 241(2) does not apply absent a transaction. The claim is bound to fail and is struck...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 311 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant: Stephen John Hunt; First Respondent: Andrew Hosking; Respondent: Lorraine Hosking; Respondent: Johannah McSweeney; Respondent: Carol Hosking; Respondent: Beth Rees; Respondent: Joanne Temple; Respondent: Philip Thompson; Respondent: Leonard Colbert; Respondent: Natalie Waugh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Summary Judgment/strike Out / Judgment on Summary Judgment/strike Out Application
Outcome
Claim struck out/summarily dismissed
Legal Topics
Transactions at an Undervalue, Section 238 Insolvency Act 1986, Authority of Agents, Strike Out and Summary Judgment, Third Party Recipient Liability
Insolvency Company Law Transactions at an Undervalue Section 238 Insolvency Act 1986 Authority of Agents Strike Out and Summary Judgment Third Party Recipient Liability

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen John Hunt

Applicant

Andrew Hosking

First Respondent

Lorraine Hosking

Respondent

Johannah McSweeney

Respondent

Carol Hosking

Respondent

Beth Rees

Respondent

Joanne Temple

Respondent

Philip Thompson

Respondent

Leonard Colbert

Respondent

Natalie Waugh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Summary Judgment/strike Out / Judgment on Summary Judgment/strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payments made to Mr Hosking were transactions at an undervalue under section 238 Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether the Company entered into a transaction with Mr Hosking
  3. 3 Whether section 241(2) applies to third party recipients

Ratio Decidendi

There was no transaction between the Company and Mr Hosking within the meaning of section 238 Insolvency Act 1986, as payments were either authorised fee disbursements or unauthorised misappropriations, not mutual dealings. Section 241(2) does not apply absent a transaction. The claim is bound to fail and is struck out/summarily dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out/summarily dismissed

Orders

  • Application by Mr Hosking for summary judgment/strike out is granted
  • Liquidator's claim under section 238 is dismissed