High Court Grants Interim Relief in Paul Allen v Sines Parks Holdings Limited, Addressing Insolvency and Property Law Issues

Citation: [2023] EWHC 3104 (Ch)
Judgment on

Introduction

The case of Paul Allen v Sines Parks Holdings Limited is of considerable interest to legal professionals, illustrating key principles within UK insolvency and property law. The case involved an application for interim injunctive relief which had two principal grounds, involving a section 238 Insolvency Act 1986 claim and tenancy disputes after the sale of certain properties by a chargee in possession. This article dissects the High Court judgment, highlighting the key topics discussed and the legal principles at play.

Key Facts

In this matter, the applicants, as Joint Administrators of six companies now in administration, sought an order under s.238 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in relation to a “Transfer Agreement.” They also filed an urgent interim application to prevent the respondent, Sines Parks Holdings Limited, from developing and selling mobile home plots to which it claims rights.

The initial claim under s.238 was contested on the basis that there was no serious issue to be tried since the Companies received no benefit from the Transfer Agreement, negating the provision for substantial consideration. Further issues arose after the sale of the subject sites by the chargee, ICG, to third-party companies and the granting of tenancies to the Companies by these companies.

The applicants opposed the claim on multiple grounds, including the contention that the s.238 claim should be struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds for action. The respondent’s counter-argument emphasized ongoing tenant rights as protection against the Applicants’ claim.

Section 238 Insolvency Act 1986 Claim

The crux of the s.238 claim revolved around the Transfer Agreement, where the applicants asserted that the Companies received no real consideration in exchange for transferring 200 mobile home plots. This claim was struck down as the Court identified that subsequent clauses in the Transfer Agreement seemingly did provide consideration to the Companies, creating a ‘serious issue to be tried.’ However, this finding was not critical for granting the interim relief, as the Court concluded that the s.238 claim disclosed no reasonable grounds for action and should be struck out, subject to any application to amend.

American Cyanamid Principles

Moving to the principles established in the case “American Cyanamid Co (No 1) v Ethicon Ltd” (1975), the Court considered whether there was a serious issue to be tried, the adequacy of damages as a remedy, and where the balance of convenience lay. These principles were engaged when assessing the interim injunction sought by the applicants related to the temporary tenancies granted to the Companies by the newly titled landowners, the Ambassador Royale Companies. The Court considered the potential interference with the administration process and concluded that damages were not an adequate remedy.

Statutory Moratorium and Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986

The Applicants also contended that the Respondent’s intended actions were a breach of the statutory moratorium. This moratorium prevents creditors from enforcing their rights without permission from the court, thereby protecting the company under administration. Permission under paragraph 43 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 is essential before certain rights or actions can be pursued against an insolvent company, which the Respondent had yet to acquire.

Overreaching and Property Rights

A legal issue also analyzed was whether the rights invoked by the Respondent were overreached by the sale of the property by ICG. Overreaching, in property law, would typically extinguish the Respondent’s rights to deal with the Plots. However, clarification on the issue of overreaching was reserved for a subsequent hearing.

Outcomes

The Court granted an interim relief favoring the Applicants, effectively restraining the Respondent from acting contrary to the Companies’ tenancies and intervening in the Administration Process. This was granted on the premise that there is a serious issue to be tried concerning the Respondent’s rights after the sale of assets by ICG and granting of temporary tenancies to the Companies. However, the court carved out an exception allowing the Respondent access to inspect and survey the plots provided it refrained from granting any rights to third parties.

Conclusion

In Paul Allen v Sines Parks Holdings Limited, critical aspects of insolvency law, property rights, and the functions of judicial discretion in interim injunctions were examined. The case underscores the court’s role in protecting the statutory process of administration and setting the stage for conclusive decisions regarding the rights and obligations stemming from a Transfer Agreement and Settlement Deed within insolvency and property contexts. The determination stressed the importance of the statutory moratorium and the adequacy of relief measures vis-à-vis the actual apprehension of harm. The Court’s decision, pending further submissions, reflects a nuanced balance between assertive statutory protection for companies in administration and the preservation of creditors’ rights.

Related Summaries