Re Trident Fashions Plc
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Martin Nourse,Lord Justice Maurice Kay,Lord Justice Rix |
| Judgment Date | 10 March 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWCA Civ 203 |
| Date | 10 March 2006 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: A2/2005/0829 |
[2006] EWCA Civ 203
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY DIVISION
(SIR DONALD RATTEE)
NO: 2004/2337
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Rix
Lord Justice Maurice Kay and
Sir Martin Nourse
Case No: A2/2005/0829
Mr Paul French (instructed by Messrs Stones) for the appellant
Mr Lloyd Tamlyn (instructed by Messrs Hammonds) for the respondent
Trident Fashions plc ("the Company") was incorporated in 2001 and commenced trading in June of that year following its acquisition of the menswear chain "Ciro Citterio" from the administrators of Ciro Citterio Menswear plc. The Company traded as menswear retailers using the name "Ciro Citterio". For the purposes of its trading the Company was in exclusive occupation of about 50 shops around the country, including premises at 240 High Street, Exeter. The local authority responsible for the levying and collection of non-domestic rates in respect of those premises were and are the Exeter City Council ("the Council") .
On 17 th September 2003 an administration order was made against the Company and three joint administrators were appointed. In December 2003 the creditors of the Company approved a proposal for a Company voluntary arrangement ("CVA") and the joint administrators were appointed as its joint supervisors. In January 2004 the Council received an interim distribution in the CVA of £4,115.78 in respect of arrears of rates that were due as at 17 th September 2003.
Despite the approval of the CVA the administration order in respect of the Company continued. On 20 th April 2004 the original joint administrators were replaced by Vivian Murray Bairstow and James Patrick Martin, licensed insolvency practitioners and partners in the firm of Begbies Traynor ("the Begbies Administrators") . They are the respondents to these proceedings. The administration (which would have otherwise expired automatically on 17 th September 2004) was extended for six months by an order of the court until 17 th March 2005, when it expired automatically under paragraph 76 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 ("the 1986 Act") . The Begbies Administrators thereupon ceased to be administrators of the Company, whose control reverted to its management. However, the Company went into administration again on 7 th April 2005, with different joint administrators. That administration ended on 27 th April 2005, when the Company was ordered to be wound up by the Court.
On 15 th March 2005, two days before the ending of the first administration, the Council issued an application in the Companies Court seeking a declaration that the non-domestic rates that had accrued to them since 17 th September 2003, together with interest thereon, fell within sub-paragraph (a) , alternatively sub-paragraph (f) , of Rule 2.67(1) of the Insolvency Rules 1986. Two forms of substantive relief were sought in the alternative. The statement of grounds relied on included the following:
"Throughout the administration of the Company, from 17 th September 2003 onwards and continuing, the Company has been in rateable occupation of the Premises for the purposes of its continuing trade. Accordingly, a liability for the Rates has continued to accrue in favour of [the Council]."
The arrears of rates claimed fell into four different periods, those in the first three periods being quantified at an aggregate of £75,753.21, with those in the fourth period to be ascertained in due course. It was recognised that credit would be given for the interim distribution received in the CVA.
The respondents to the Council's application were the Begbies Administrators and the Company itself. No evidence was filed in support or opposition to the application, reliance apparently being placed only on counsel's skeleton arguments on each side. No point seems to have been taken in regard to this informality, which, as will appear, has subsisted up to the hearing in this court.
The application came before Sir Donald Rattee, sitting as a judge of the Chancery Division, "for directions only" on 5 th April 2005. Principally for the reason that by that time the Begbies Administrators had ceased to act as such, the alternative forms of relief sought by the Council in their application were not pressed. That meant that the judge was faced with a bare application for a declaration that the rates fell within Rule 2.67(1) (a) or (f) . In that state of affairs the Begbies Administrators applied to be removed as parties to the application and for the claim for relief against them to be struck out.
In his brief...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Re Nortel GmbH ((in Administration)) and related companies
-
Re Portsmouth City Football Club Ltd; Neumans LLP v Andronikou and Others
...even if they did not accept it, that proposition is consistent with the approach of the courts in a number of decisions such as Re Trident Fashions plc [2007] 2 BCLC 455 at [79]-[80] and Re Nortel Gmbh [2012] 1 BCLC 248. 48 Mr Snowden on behalf of the solicitors eventually put his case in t......
- (1) Alan Robert Bloom (2) Alan Michael Hudson (3) Christopher John Wilkinson Hill (4) Stephen John Harris (5) David Martin Hughes v (1) The Pensions Regulator and Others
- Goldacre (Offices) Ltd v Nortel Networks UK Ltd ((in Administration))