(Leeds County Court) The creditor sought to have a proof admitted for pounds 479k, but the chair admitted it only for pounds 1.00, and the IVA proposal was accepted again the wishes of the creditor. The creditor said that the IP had misunderstood the claim and should have treated it as liquidated. The chair responded that in fact the claim (under a guarantee) was disputed on substantial grounds and was likely to fail.
 EW Misc B18 (CC)
Insolvency Rules 1986 5.21 5.22, Insolvenct Act 1986 262
England and Wales
Cited – Re a Debtor (No 222 of 1990) ex parte the Bank of Ireland ChD 1992
Harman J discussed the rules of a creditors’ meeting: ‘In my judgment the scheme of the meeting rules in r 5.17 is quite plainly a simple one. As one would expect the meeting is not the place to go into lengthy debates as to the exact status of a . .
Cited – Power v Petrus Estates Ltd and others ChD 31-Oct-2008
The chairman of the creditors meeting had marked the proof of Petrus as objected to but had allowed Petrus to resulting in the appointment of the joint liquidators. The claimant now challenged this saying that had Petrus not been allowed tp vote he . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.567378