BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Harlow (Administrator of Blak Pearl Ltd) v Creative Staging Ltd [2014] EWHC 2787 (Ch) (23 July 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2787.html Cite as: [2014] EWHC 2787 (Ch) |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CHANCERY DIVISION
BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT REGISTRY
The Priory Courts, Bull Street, Birmingham B4 6DS. |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
JOHN HARLOW (ADMINISTRATOR OF BLAK PEARL LIMITED) |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
CREATIVE STAGING LIMITED |
Respondent |
____________________
1st Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court,
Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP.
Telephone No: 020 7067 2900. Fax No: 020 7831 6864
____________________
MR. STEPHEN WHITAKER of counsel instructed by Brindley Twist Tafft & James LLP appeared for the Respondent
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
JUDGE PURLE:
"When property lawyers talked of a right being 'suspended' during the unity of possession, they considered it 'not in esse for a time … but maybe revived or awaked': see Co Litt 313A.
"In my judgment that accurately expresses the intent of the paragraph. Section 127 will therefore not avoid a disposition by an administrator validly appointed under paragraph 14 of Schedule B1."
"For my part I have no doubt that if in order to terminate an administration, an administrator makes an application under paragraph 79(1) of Schedule B1, that his appointment shall cease to have effect from the specified time, then the court has power under paragraph 79(4)(b) …." which everyone agrees must be a reference to paragraph 79(4)(d) … "likewise to make an order on the suspended petition either dismissing it or making a compulsory winding-up order, depending on the course taken by the administration and the necessity for distributions or investigations. That is an approach I would have adopted here had the April order not been made." (The April order was the winding-up order.)
"That pursuant to paragraph 79(1) of Schedule B1 the appointment of the administrator shall cease to have effect from noon on December 8th, 2006;
(b) Under paragraph 79(4)(d) that the suspension of the winding-up petition effective at 10.10 a.m. April 19th 2006 shall thereupon cease;
(c) That the winding-up order dated April 26th 2006 shall thereupon take effect."
"A company maybe wound up by the court if …" amongst other things: "(f) The company is unable to pay its debts."
"In addition, even if I were satisfied that I did have a discretion to make the order sought and assuming, as is submitted on behalf of the Applicant, it is a wide discretion, I am not persuaded that it would be an appropriate exercise of any such discretion to make the order sought since no or no good explanation has been given as to why the explicit statutory process has not been followed in this case. In addition, such an order, if made, is likely to be highly prejudicial to a significant body of creditors paid over eighteen months ago and who may as a result now be subject to stale claims to pay the monies back, as I say, after such a long period of time."