Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Andrew Bland & Anor v JDK Construction Limited (in liquidation) & Anor

13 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2805 (Ch)
High Court
A mom and son fought over a company. The son's wife (who was in charge) put the company into liquidation. The mom said it was wrong because the son's wife cheated her out of her shares. The judge said even if she was cheated, the official company records showed the wife as the sole owner when the company was put into liquidation, so the liquidation and the appointed liquidators were valid.

Key Facts

  • JDK Construction Limited (JDK) was placed into creditors' voluntary liquidation by Julie Keegan, the purported sole shareholder and director.
  • Jeanette Keegan, Julie's mother and former 50% shareholder, disputed the validity of the share transfer to Julie, claiming forgery.
  • A Tomlin Order settled Jeanette's rectification claim, acknowledging the invalidity of the share transfer but without a judicial determination of forgery.
  • Joint liquidators applied for a declaration of their valid appointment and directions under section 232 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
  • The company's register of members showed Julie as the sole shareholder at the time of the liquidation resolution.

Legal Principles

Validity of liquidator's acts despite defects in appointment.

Insolvency Act 1986, section 232

Register of members is prima facie evidence of membership.

Companies Act 2006, section 127

Every person whose name is entered in the company's register of members is a member.

Companies Act 2006, section 112(2)

Requirements for a valid special resolution to wind up a company.

Insolvency Act 1986, section 84(1)(b); Companies Act 2006, sections 281(1)(b), 307(1)

Outcomes

The joint liquidators' appointment was declared valid.

The register of members, at the time of the liquidation resolution, showed Julie as the sole shareholder. Even if the share transfer was a forgery, the register is conclusive evidence of membership at that time. Section 232 of the Insolvency Act 1986 was not needed to validate the appointment.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.