Re Trident Fashions Plc
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 February 2004 |
| Date | 05 February 2004 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
CHANCERY DIVISION
Before Mr Justice Lewison
Insolvency - company voluntary arrangement - irregularity - power of court to intervene
On an application seeking relief from the approval at a creditors' meeting of a company voluntary arrangement on the ground that there had been an irregularity as a result of an omission of material at the meeting by the responsible insolvency practitioner, a court could interfere with the arrangement only if the omission was one which no reasonable practitioner could have made.
Mr Justice Lewison so held in the Chancery Division when dismissing an application brought by the claimants, Mr Wayne Anderson, Press On Digital Imaging Ltd and Harshu Ltd, creditors of Trident Fashions plc, seeking relief under section 6(1)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986 in respect of a company voluntary arrangement agreed at a creditors' meeting on the ground of material irregularity in the meeting.
The application was brought against the company's joint administrators, Mr Andrew Pepper, Mr Gurpal Johal, Mr Fraser Gray and Kroll Ltd, the company which employed them.
The material irregularity relied upon was the failure by Mr Pepper to disclose to the meeting the existence of certain offers to purchase the company.
Mr Nicholas Hamblen, QC and Mr Sudhanshu Swaroop for the claimants; Miss Raquel Agnello for the defendants.
MR JUSTICE LEWISON said that a company voluntary arrangement had to be distinguished from individual bankruptcies where the basnkrupt, an interested party was making the proposals.
The question the court had to ask when considering whether there had been an irregularity as a result of the omission of material at a creditors' meeting on a company voluntary arangement was not whether it would have come to the same conclusion.
Rather, it could interfere only if a judgment made by the insolvency practitioner responsible for supervising the arrangement was a judgment which no reasonable insolvency practitioner would have made.
The court's assessment of reasonableness had to be made on the basis of the material available to the responsible practitioner at the time and not with the benefit of hindsight.
However, any misrepresentation by him at the creditors' meeting was an irregularity. A practitioner who chose to explain the position at the creditors' meeting had to give a fair and balanced explanation.
When he answered a question he had to do so fairly and without misleading; for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HM Revenue and Customs v Portsmouth City Football Club Ltd ((in Administration)) and Others
...approved the CVA in its presented form. The chance must be substantial, but it does not have to proved to beyond the 50% level. Re Trident Fashions (No 2) [2004] 2 BCLC 35. The motivation and policy of HMRC 42 It was abundantly plain from the outset of this hearing that HMRC has throughout ......
-
R (RJM) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
...the European Court of Human Rights had ruled in Stec and Others v United Kingdom (Application Nos 65731/01 and 65900/01)TLR (The Times April 23, 2004; (2005) 41 EHRR SE 295) that a right to a welfare benefit was a possession for the purposes of article 1, whether or not conditional on the p......
-
Standing and global warming: is injury to all injury to none?
...ratification process). (120) Id at 58; Randy Lee Loftis, The Green Vote; Where Bush and Kerry Stand on Environmental Issues, SEATTLE TIMES, Apr. 23, 2004, at A3, available at2004 WL (121) See Dep't of Energy, Climate VISION--Voluntary Innovative Sector Initiatives: Opportunities Now, at htt......