Re Cromptons Leisure Machines Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE LEWISON |
| Judgment Date | 13 December 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWHC 3583 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: GLC130/06 & GLC 131/06 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 13 December 2006 |
Mr Justice Lewison
Case No: GLC130/06 & GLC 131/06
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
MR BARRY ISAACS (instructed by Isadine Goldman) appeared on behalf of the ADMINISTRATOR
In the case of an administration governed by the Insolvency Act 1986 (before its amendment by the Enterprise Act 2002), does the court have power to authorise the administrators to make a distribution to creditors who would be preferential creditors in the event of a winding-up? This question has been considered at first instance in recent times by no less than eight judges who have reached different conclusions. Six judges (Jacob, Jonathan Parker, Arden, Peter Smith and Pumfrey JJ and His Honour Judge Norris QC) have said yes, and two judges (Lightman and Rimer JJ) have said no. The question is now largely of historic interest because in administrations governed by schedule B1 of the Act, paragraph 65 of that schedule empowers an administrator to make distributions to creditors.
In Re Powerstore Trading Limited [1992] Ch 1280 Lightman J held that the court had no jurisdiction under section 18 to sanction the distribution to creditors. In Re Mark One (Oxford Street) Plc [1999] 1WLR 1445 Jacob J refused to follow Lightman J. He held that the court had power either under section 18 or in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to authorise the distribution. In Re Wolsey Theatre Company Limited [2001] BCC 486 Jonathan Parker J preferred the reasoning in Re Mark One (Oxford Street) Plc to that in Re Powerstore Trading Limited. So did Arden J in Re UCT (UK) Limited [2001] 1WLR 436 in which she held that the court had jurisdiction to authorise the distribution both under section 14 and under section 18 of the Act. In Re TXU (UK) Limited [2003] 2BCLC 341 Peter Smith J followed and applied Re Mark One (Oxford Street) Plc on the basis of the court's inherent jurisdiction and said that he would not have followed Re Powerstore Trading Limited on section 18. But in Re The Designer Room Limited [2005] 1WLR 1581 Rimer J followed Re Powerstore Trading Limited and doubted Re Mark One (Oxford Street) Plc insofar as Jacob J had relied on the court's inherent jurisdiction. On the other hand, Rimer J said that he found the reasoning of Arden J in Re UCT (UK) Limited wholly convincing. In Re Beauvale Group Limited [2006] BCC 912 His Honour Judge Norris QC, sitting as a judge of the Chancery Division, distinguished Re The Designer Room Limited on the ground that the application before him was made under section 18 rather than section 14 and refused to follow it insofar as Rimer J had doubted the court's inherent jurisdiction to sanction the distribution. In Re Spiralglobe Limited [2006] All ER (D) 276 Pumfrey J refused to follow The Designer Room Limited, although that case is only noted rather than fully reported. But the note does indicate that Pumfrey J considered the relevant authorities.
This is a recipe for chaos. We have arrived at the situation that Nourse J was at pains to avoid in Colchester Estates (Cardiff) Limited v Carlton Industries Plc [1986] Ch 80, another case where there were conflicting decisions at first instance. He said:
“It is desirable that the law at whatever level it is declared should generally be certain. If a decision of this court, reached after full consideration of an earlier one which went the other way, is normally to be open to...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Dr Faramarz Shayan Arani v Cordic Group Ltd
...J (as he then was) in Colchester Estates (Cardiff) Ltd v Carlton Industries Ltd [1986] Ch 80 and Re Cromptons Leisure Machines Ltd [2006] EWHC 3583 (Ch) where at [5], having approved the approach in the Colchester Estates case, Lewison J (as he then was) said as follows: “In my judgment, th......
-
Lornamead Acquisitions Ltd v Kaupthing Bank HF
...ER 863; applied in Colchester Estates (Cardiff) v Carlton Industries plc [1986] Ch 80, [1984] 2 All ER 601; itself applied in Re Cromptons Leisure Machines Ltd [2006] EWHC 3583 (Ch), [2006] All ER (D) 178 (Dec)." 54 Mr. Goldring's carefully structured argument has indeed raised doubts in my......
-
Tradition Financial Services Ltd v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others
...That is an entirely conventional approach to authority: Colchester Estates (Cardiff) Ltd v Carlton Industries plc [1986] Ch 80; Re Cromptons Leisure Machines Ltd [2006] EWHC 3583 (Ch), [2007] BCC 214. The judge said at [79]: “With that, I turn to Mr Foxton, QC's article, which is – unsurpr......
-
Gatwick Investment Ltd & Others v Liberty Mutual Insurance & others
...decision has been fully considered, and not followed, in a later decision at first instance: see Re Cromptons Leisure Machines Ltd [2006] EWHC 3583 (Ch) paras [1] – 440 Accordingly, I reject Mr Kramer's argument that the CJRS payments did not reduce the relevant costs. 441 I next turn to th......
-
Administration Developments (Spring 2007)
...permission of the court) unsecured creditors under Paragraph 65 of Schedule BI. * * * * * * * * * * Re Crompton Leisure Machines Limited [2006] EWHC 3583 This case answers the question as to whether, in pre Enterprise Act administrations, the court has power to authorise an administrator to......