Leicester v Stevenson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN |
| Judgment Date | 09 November 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWHC 2831 (Ch) |
| Date | 09 November 2002 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Cse no: 91/2002/PTA/896 |
[2002] EWHC 2831 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
The Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Lightman
Cse no: 91/2002/PTA/896
MR LEICESTER appeared as a Litigant in Person
MR NICHOLAS BRIGGS (Instructed by Clarke Willmott & Clarke) appeared for the Defendant
(This transcript has been prepared without the assistance of any documents.)
Friday, 29th November 2002
I have before me an appeal by Mr Leicester against a decision of District Judge Mayott made on the 20 th November 2000 dismissing Mr Leicester's application for an order to rescind the winding up order made on the 14 th March 1997 against Wilton Fair Ltd, a company of which Mr Leicester was a director and shareholder.
The application was made on the 20 th July 2000, over three years after the winding up order. The district judge appears to have mistakenly treated the application as though it was an application for directions under the Insolvency Act; but he directly addressed the issue whether or not the winding up order ought to be set aside on its merits and he dismissed it. The error by the district judge does not, it seems to me, affect the matter as it comes before me.
The question before me, as it was in substance before him, is whether or not the winding up order should be rescinded. On this application, which is opposed, Mr Leicester applied for an adjournment in order that further enquiries could be made and further documents could be obtained which might have significance in this case. I refused the application on the ground that such an adjournment could not serve any useful purpose.
Mr Leicester and his son, Mark, were the shareholders in another company called Lidel Ltd, and his son was the sole director of that company. In December 1996 Lidel was hopelessly insolvent, owing substantial sums to the Inland Revenue and at an a duly convened meeting of shareholders and creditors, Lidel was placed in insolvent voluntary liquidation, and Mr Stevenson, the first defendant, was appointed liquidator. It is quite clear, from examining the contemporary documents, that both father and son endorsed the decision to place Lidel in liquidation and to appoint Mr Stevenson as liquidator.
Mr Leicester has argued before me that various documents are missing from the files which are to be expected to be in the file in the case of such a liquidation. I am satisfied that every proper act has been done to place the company into liquidation, and the presumption of regularity makes up any insufficiency in the documentation presently available. As one example of his complaint, Mr Leicester complains that there is no indication that a duly convened directors' meeting took place. But all steps were taken to place the company in liquidation. Mr Mark Leicester was a sole director and was instrumental in the implementation of the arrangements for placing the company in liquidation. Accordingly, there is no basis it seems to me for any suggestion that anything requiring authorisation by the directors was not duly authorised. It seems to me that there is no basis for suggesting that that liquidation or the appointment of Mr Stevenson as liquidator is invalid, least of all since this all was done at the instance of Mr Leicester who clearly knew about it at all relevant times, and indeed clearly approved of the steps taken.
Mr Stevenson, as liquidator, thereafter presented a petition to wind up Wilton Fair on the basis of a debt of £170,000 due to Lidel. The petition was duly verified by a statement and duly presented to the court. Wilton Fair had the benefit of legal and accountancy advice. It acknowledged the debt. It did not dispute the debt and it did not oppose the making of the winding up order. The winding up order was duly made. Mr Leicester, as a director of the company, was fully aware of what was going on, and indeed after the liquidation, he wrote a series of letters to the liquidator making plain that the petition was duly presented and that the debt was due to Lidel from Wilton Fair. For example, by a letter dated the 10 th November 1997, he sought to persuade the liquidator to commence proceedings against members of Wilton Fair; he wrote,
"I clearly understand Lidel Ltd made a short term bridging loan to Wilton Fair; I also understand that that loan was underwritten by all the directors who have substantial personal wealth."
And, again, perhaps more importantly, on the 21 st December 1997, he wrote,
"I have not loaned the company WFL the £170,000. It was my company Lidel Ltd. I stated to Mr Alken that he was aware of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Frazer Nash technology Ltd
...of complying with the time scale set down by rule 7.47 therefore has a particular importance and led Mr. Justice Lightman in Leicester v. Stevenson [2003] 2 BCLC 97, at 100f, to conclude that any extension of time must be justified and strictly justified if the extension is to cover any sub......
-
Hills R Ravinder Bhardwaj v The Official Receiver and Others
...rescind a winding up order and thereby revive a company and return it to the control of its directors. 13 In Leicester v Stevenson [2002] EWHC 2831 (Ch) Lightman J refused to rescind a winding up order on an application made more than three years later. Lightman J held that the basis of the......