Liquidation in UK Law

In this Topic
Leading Cases
  • Re Toshoku Finance UK Plc
    • House of Lords
    • 20 February 2002

    Expenses incurred after the liquidation date need no further equitable reason why they should be paid. It is not the business of the liquidator to incur expenses for any other purpose. There would be little point in a statute which specifically imposed liabilities upon a company in liquidation if they were payable only in the rare case in which it emerged with all other creditors having been paid.

    In the first place, the question of whether the community charge should count as an expense of the liquidation was not a matter for the judge's discretion. In depended upon whether it came within one of the paragraphs of rule 4.218. The liability did not arise out of a pre-liquidation obligation. If it came within the language of paragraph (m), it was a liquidation expense.

  • Re Lines Brothers. Ltd
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 11 February 1982

    If the creditor petitions to wind up a company, or claims in a liquidation initiated by others, he is not engaged in proceedings to establish the company's liability or the quantum of the liability (although liability and quantum may be put in issue) but to enforce the liability. The liquidation of an insolvent company is a process of collective enforcement of debts for the benefit of the general body of creditors.

  • HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v JLT Risk Solutions Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 09 April 2008

    That principle requires that English courts should, so far as is consistent with justice and UK public policy, co-operate with the courts in the country of the principal liquidation to ensure that all the company's assets are distributed to its creditors under a single system of distribution.

  • Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) ((in Administration))
    • Chancery Division
    • 14 March 2014

    There are, as I see it, a number of serious difficulties with this submission. First, on a natural reading of 2.88(7) it applies to a surplus in the hands of the administrator rather than in the hands of a subsequent liquidator. Read in its context, it seems to direct the administrator as to the application of the surplus which he holds.

  • Re Gray's Inn Construction Company Ltd
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 05 December 1979

    Since the policy of the law is to procure so far as practicable rateable payments of the unsecured creditors' claims, it is, in my opinion, clear that the court should not validate any transaction or series of transactions which might result in one or more pre-liquidation creditors being paid in full at the expense of other creditors, who will only receive a dividend, in the absence of special circumstances making such a course desirable in the interests of the unsecured creditors as a body.

    A disposition carried out in good faith in the ordinary course of business at a time when the parties are unaware that a petition has been presented may, it seems, normally be validated by the court (see re Wiltshire Iron Co.

See all results
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT