Hunt v Hosking & Ors

Hunt v Hosking & Ors

The application was bound to fail because there was no transaction between the company and Mr Hosking for the purposes of section 238 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Payments made by Mr Temple were either authorised under the fee agreements or were unauthorised misappropriations, not transactions. Section 241 could not apply in the absence of a transaction. The application disclosed no reasonable cause of action and had no real prospect of success.

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
Insolvency Application (transaction at Undervalue) / Summary Judgment/strike Out Application
Outcome
Application dismissed/struck out
Legal Topics
Transactions at Undervalue, Liquidator Powers, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Agency, Trusts
Insolvency Law Company Law Transactions at Undervalue Liquidator Powers Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications Agency Trusts

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
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

Insolvency Application (transaction at Undervalue) / Summary Judgment/strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payments made to Mr Hosking were transactions at an undervalue under section 238 of the Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether there was a transaction between the company and Mr Hosking for the purposes of section 238
  3. 3 Whether the payments could be challenged under section 241 as against a third party recipient

Ratio Decidendi

The application was bound to fail because there was no transaction between the company and Mr Hosking for the purposes of section 238 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Payments made by Mr Temple were either authorised under the fee agreements or were unauthorised misappropriations, not transactions. Section 241 could not apply in the absence of a transaction. The application disclosed no reasonable cause of action and had no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed/struck out

Orders

  • The liquidator's application is dismissed/struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and having no real prospect of success.
  • Directions to be made at hand down for further conduct of the action.