Adrian Charles Hyde v Antony David Nygate (in his Capacity as Representative of the Estate of James Joseph Bannon, Former Joint Administrator of One Blackfriars Ltd Appointed Under Cpr R 19.8(1))

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeJohn Kimbell
Judgment Date23 March 2021
Neutral Citation[2021] EWHC 684 (Ch)
CourtChancery Division
Docket NumberCase No: CR-2017-007339
Date23 March 2021

[2021] EWHC 684 (Ch)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES

CHANCERY DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF ONE BLACKFRIARS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT 1986

The Rolls Building

Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL

Before:

John Kimbell QC

(sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Case No: CR-2017-007339

Between:
(1) Adrian Charles Hyde
(2) Kevin Anthony Murphy (As Joint Liquidators of One Blackfriars Limited)
Applicants
and
(1) Antony David Nygate (In his Capacity as Representative of the Estate of James Joseph Bannon, Former Joint Administrator of One Blackfriars Limited Appointed Under Cpr R 19.8(1))
(2) Sarah Megan Rayment (As Former Joint Administrators of One Blackfriars Limited)
Respondents

Simon Davenport QC and Tom Poole (instructed by Humphries Kerstetter LLP) for the Applicants

Justin Fenwick QC and Ben Smiley (instructed by Mayer Brown International LLP) for the Respondents

Hearing dates: 8 – 12, 15 – 19, 24 – 26 & 30 June 2020 & 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 July 2020

APPROVED JUDGMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section

Title

Paras.

A

INTRODUCTION

1–25

B

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

26–164

C

THE PROCEEDINGS

165–172

D

LIST OF ISSUES

173

E

WITNESSES

174–190

F

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

191–199

G

THE DUTIES OWED

200–258

H

THE ALLEGED BREACHES

(i) Was there an improper agreement to a “light touch” administration?

(ii) Was the appointment of CBRE appropriate and were they independent?

(iii) Was there a failure by the FAs to gather and analyse sufficient information about the value of the Site?

(iv) Was there a failure to gather and analyse sufficient information in order to determine which statutory objective to pursue?

(v) Was there a failure by the FAs to exercise their own independent judgement?

(vi) Was there a failure to investigate, pursue and obtain a varied planning consent?

(vii) Should the FAs have sought to negotiate overage provisions or a conditional contract?

(viii) Was there a failure to ensure the Site was appropriately marketed?

(ix) Was there a failure to conduct an appropriate bidding process?

(x) Sale at an undervalue.

259–464

I

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

465

J

DISPOSAL

466–467

A. INTRODUCTION

1

The Applicants in these proceedings are Adrian Hyde and Kevin Murphy. They were appointed as the joint liquidators (the ‘ JLs’) of One Blackfriars Ltd (‘ OBL’ or ‘ the Company’) on 30 March 2016.

2

The Second Respondent and Mr Shay Bannon are the former administrators (the ‘ FAs’) of the Company. They were appointed on 14 October 2010 by a syndicate of banks (‘ the Syndicate’). The Syndicate was led by the Royal Bank of Scotland (‘ RBS’).

3

The Syndicate provided OBL with a facility (‘ the Facility’) to refinance a loan which OBL had used to purchase a plot of land at 1–16 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 9BP (‘ the Site’).

4

Mr Bannon died on 12 May 2018. The First Respondent is the representative of the estate of Mr Bannon.

5

In September 2010, the Company defaulted on its obligations under the Facility and demand was made for immediate repayment of the then outstanding sum (£61.4 million). The sum was not repaid so the Syndicate appointed the FAs under a legal charge held by RBS as security for the Facility.

6

The Site was marketed on behalf of the FAs by the CB Richard Ellis Ltd. (‘ CBRE’) and was ultimately sold to St. George Group PLC (‘ St. George’) in December 2011. The purchase price paid by St. George for the Site was £77.4 million.

7

Having obtained permission from the relevant planning authority to vary the approved scheme previously obtained by OBL, St. George subsequently developed the Site in the form in which it exists today, namely, a 50-storey 170 m high tower containing 274 residential flats and two smaller buildings. One of the smaller buildings contains a 161 room hotel. The other contains retail units.

8

The JLs, represented by Simon Davenport QC and Tom Poole, allege that the administration of OBL was mishandled by the FAs from the outset. The JLs allege that the Site was sold at an undervalue and that, had the FAs complied with their statutory and common law obligations, OBL could have been saved as a going concern. For the reasons given in an earlier 1 judgment, the JLs were not permitted to allege that the FAs had acted in breach of duty for failing to attempt a rescue of OBL as a going concern. Instead, the JLs allege that the chance of a funded rescue was lost because of other breaches of duty. This case was added by way of an amendment in August 2019.

9

The JLs' allegations against the FAs fall under three broad headings:

(1) Failure to act independently and in accordance with their legal duties

(2) Failure to properly assess the value of the Site, in particular its planning potential and

(3) Failure to market and sale at an undervalue.

The JLs were at pains to point out that these three categories of claim were all interlinked.

Alleged failure to act independently

10

The JLs allege that the FAs improperly pursued the interests of the Syndicate, who wanted in a quick disposal of the Site to clear OBL's debt, and that the FAs paid insufficient regard to the interests of other creditors. Linked to this is the allegation that the FAs failed to inform themselves sufficiently (or in some cases at all) prior to making crucial decisions including, in particular, the decision as to which of the statutory objectives of the administration to pursue.

Alleged failure to properly assess value of the Site

11

The JLs allege that the FAs: (a) failed to interrogate and understand the planning potential for the Site; (b) failed to consider or assess the valuations for the Site previously obtained by the Company before and during the administration; (c) failed to obtain their own independent valuation for the Site; and (d) failed to reconcile the disparity between the previous valuations and the strategic advice provided by CBRE to the Syndicate.

Alleged sale at an undervalue

12

The JLs say that CBRE should never have been appointed to market the Site because they had previously advised the Syndicate and what marketing they did was in any event negligent. This failure, together with a deficient bidding process, they say, led to the Site being sold at an undervalue.

13

The JLs accordingly sought an examination of the FAs' conduct of the administration under paragraph 75(3) of Schedule B1 (‘ SchedB1’) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (‘ IA86’) and claim compensation. Permission to bring the claim was granted under paragraph 75(6) of SchedB1 by William Trower QC, sitting (as he then was) as a Deputy High Court Judge, on 24 April 2018.

The FAs' case

14

The FAs, represented by Justin Fenwick QC and Ben Smiley, deny any breach of duty on the part of the FAs. They say that by the time the Company fell into administration the scheme for which OBL had obtained consent was no longer financially viable and OBL was hopelessly insolvent. The FAs' case is that it was reasonable to decide to sell the Site in the interests of all the creditors. They further say that they took appropriate planning advice, from a leading planning consultant, DP9, and followed that advice by formally implementing the existing planning consent, that it was reasonable to use CBRE to market the Site and that the marketing and bidding process was properly carried out. The FAs say the Site was sold for its then market value.

The form of the trial

15

The hearing of the trial took place in unusual circumstances. Because of the restrictions imposed by the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, a normal trial with the parties, their legal representatives, the witnesses and any interested member of the public all physically gathered together in a court in the Rolls Building for five weeks was impossible. Having refused an application to adjourn the trial for reasons set out in my judgment of 6 April 2020 2, I ordered the parties to co-operate to explore what options there might be to enable the trial to proceed as a fully remote trial.

16

The parties did co-operate. By the time of the second pre-trial review held on 21 April 2020 the parties had agreed a technological solution to enable the trial to proceed as a fully remote hearing. This involved the use of a hosted virtual court room accessed by Zoom, an electronic trial bundle and a live transcript. Any extra hardware needed to ensure a sufficiently stable audio-visual connection to facilitate a hearing conducted by Zoom was provided by Sparq. The electronic trial bundle and live transcript was provided by Opus2.

17

The technology worked well. The advocates, the witness giving evidence and I could all see and hear each other clearly in real time with very little interruption. From time to time the picture froze but for the most part when this occurred the sound (and the live transcript) continued so the impact on the progress of the trial was minimal.

18

A remote trial bundle operator displayed any document which the advocate wished to refer the court or witness to. The document displayed on the screen was visible not only to the witness but to everyone attending the hearing. It was also possible to display on screen more than one document side by side. Excel spreadsheets and other electronic documents could be displayed and zoomed in and out at the request of the advocate or witness. Electronic documents could be used in native format so it was possible for the expert evidence to be tested in real time against alternative factual scenarios. The result was not just that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
1 firm's commentaries
  • Administrator Breach Of Duty Claim
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 5 de julho de 2021
    ...and directors as their appointment is to bring independent judgment to the company. Re One Blackfriars Ltd (in Liquidation) [2021] EWHC 684 (Ch) The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific...

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