Simon Carvill-Biggs & Anor v Ashley Valentine Reading
[2024] EWCA Civ 1005
Manolete Partners PLC v Nigel John Jones & Anor.
14 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 236 (Ch)
High Court
A company sued two people for taking its money. Those people tried to delay the case by questioning how the company's administrator was appointed. The judge said no, the delay is their own fault and the case should continue. Even if the appointment is found to be wrong, it wouldn't necessarily stop the lawsuit.
Key Facts
- •Traxx (Aggregates) Limited ('the Company') was placed into administration in 2016.
- •Manolete Partners Plc ('Applicant') acquired claims against the Respondents (Nigel John Jones and Andrea Lane Jones) for misappropriation of funds.
- •Applicant issued an insolvency application notice and a Part 7 claim, later consolidated.
- •Respondents issued an application to challenge the validity of the joint administrators' appointment.
- •Respondents applied for a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of the validity application.
Legal Principles
Court's discretionary power to stay proceedings under CPR 3.1(2)(f) and/or inherent jurisdiction under section 49(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
CPR 3.1(2)(f), Senior Courts Act 1981, section 49(3)
Overriding objective in CPR 1.1, including dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost.
CPR 1.1
Guidance in Manolete Partners plc v Hayward and Barrett Holdings Ltd [2021] EWHC 1481 (Ch) on separate proceedings for IA 1986 and CA 2006 claims.
Manolete Partners plc v Hayward and Barrett Holdings Ltd [2021] EWHC 1481 (Ch)
Considerations under CPR 1.1(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) regarding equal footing, saving expense, proportionate dealing, expeditious and fair dealing, and appropriate allocation of resources.
CPR 1.1(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e)
Potential for a retrospective administration order even if the initial appointment is deemed invalid.
Insolvency Act 1986
Company claims surviving even if the administrators' appointment is invalidated, subject to limitation periods.
Limitation Act 1980, ss 21 and 32; CPR 19.5(3)
Outcomes
Dismissed the Respondents' application for a stay of proceedings.
The court found the Respondents' difficulties in preparing a defense to be overstated and self-imposed, given their awareness of the claims since 2020 and their delay in challenging the administration. The potential for a retrospective administration order or the survival of company claims even if the original appointment was invalid weakens the Respondents' argument for a stay. The court prioritized expeditious and fair resolution of the Consolidated Proceedings, noting the risk of fading memories and unavailable evidence with delay.
Similar Cases
Speciality Steel UK Limited v FGI Worldwide LLC & Ors
[2023] EWHC 606 (Ch)
Manolete Partners PLC v Mohammed Jawed Karim & Ors
[2024] EWHC 549 (Ch)
Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd v Michael John Short
[2024] EWHC 2113 (Ch)
L & S Accounting Firm Umbrella Limited v Idusogie Laurel Oronsaye & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2315 (Ch)