interest of the creditors as a whole. Her interest was in relation to herself and her complaint was in fact with the “proceedings against herself and her family as opposed to the contractual relationship between the liquidator and Manolete”. Insolvency Act 1986 (‘the application’), which states that if any person is aggrieved by an act or decision of the liquidator, that person may apply to the Court, and the Court may confirm, reverse or modify the act or decision complained of, and make such order in the case as it thinks just. The application was based on the notion that (a) Mrs Lock had the required standing and (b) the liquidator’s decision to enter into the Assignment was perverse due to his failure to take legal advice or appropriately survey the market for potential assignees (including allowing the claimant to make a competing offer). His Honour Judge (HHJ) Halliwell, of the Supreme Court, first considered whether as creditor of the company, Mrs Lock did in fact have the standing to make the application. On examination, he concluded that she did not. He agreed with the liquidators’ argument that she did not have standing as her own interest was adverse to the class of Whilst HHJ Halliwell held that Mrs Lock did not have the required standing to bring the application, he did consider whether the assignment itself should be set aside for perversity. Following the test set out in re Edencote Ltd [1996] 2 BCLC 389, HHJ Halliwell considered SPECIAL FEATURE 41 Ultimately, the liquidator is appointed to act instead of the directors of a company and in doing so they will take commercial decisions for the benefit of the company/liquidation.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Mjk3Mzkz