Brown v Beat
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 2002 |
| Date | 2002 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
10 cases
-
Parkinson Engineering Services Plc v Swan
...section 212. It seems to me that this was the correct starting point. He had seen (as we did) the decision of Hart J in Brown v Beat [2002] BPIR 421, where the judge, considering the corresponding provision as regards bankruptcy, identified two criteria: whether or not a reasonably meritori......
-
Robert Nicholas Jason Schofield v Matthew David Smith
...BPIR 83 at [4]–[12] and Mr Davies QC further referred to Hyde v Bannon [2018] EWHC 901 (Ch). Mr Smith QC also referred to Brown v Beat [2002] BPIR 421 and the Court of Appeal decision in Parkinson Engineering Services plc v Swan [2010] BCLC 163 approving and applying the decision in Brown v......
-
Parkinson Engineering Services Plc ((in Liquidation)) v Swan and Another
...proceedings under section 212. It seems to me that this was the correct starting point. He had seen (as we did) the decision of Hart J in Brown v Beat [2002] BPIR 421, where the judge, considering the corresponding provision as regards bankruptcy, identified two criteria: whether or not a r......
-
David John Frosdick v Nigel Ian Fox and Another
...be struck out is because Mr Frosdick will never get permission under section 304 to bring it in the first place. 48 Mr Curl refers to Brown v Beat [2002] BPIR 421, Hart J, and also to the decision of Chief Registrar Baister in Re Borodzicz [2016] BPIR 24 which analysed the decision of Hart ......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
-
Cassanova v Cockerton
...trustee had included four false claims in the list of creditors. The deputy judge, in line with the judgment of Hart J in Brown v Beat [2002] BPIR 421, found that s 304 Insolvency Act with its prescriptive gateway was what she had to consider; s 303 was not the appropriate jurisdiction in t......