A creditor sought an order to replace the company liquidator.
Held: Such orders were discretionary, but courts should not grant them too readily. It was for the applicant to show good reason for the order. The circumstances would vary widely, and the court should not try to delimit the kind of situations where an application would succeed. Nevertheless a liquidator might be removed where he had failed to act vigorously, or had a perceived bias in favour of one section of creditors. Where a liquidator was subject to proper criticism, a court might be ready to order his removal. The court must also bear in mind the consequences in cost and delay of removal. This liquidator should not be removed. ‘In an application such as this, the court may have to carry out a difficult balancing exercise. On the one hand the court expects any liquidator, whether in a compulsory winding up or a voluntary winding up, to be efficient and vigorous and unbiased in his conduct of the liquidation, and it should have no hesitation in removing a liquidator if satisfied that he has failed to live up to those standards at least unless it can be reasonably confident that he will live up to those requirements in the future. . . On the other hand, if a liquidator has been generally effective and honest, the court must think carefully before deciding to remove him and replace him. It should not be seen to be easy to remove a liquidator merely because it can be shown that in one, or possibly more than one, respect his conduct has fallen short of ideal. Otherwise, it would encourage applications under s108 (2) by creditors who have not had their preferred liquidator appointed, or who are for some other reason disgruntled. Once a liquidation has been conducted for a time, no doubt there can almost always be criticism of the conduct, in the sense that one can identify things that could have been done better, or things that could have been done earlier. It is all too easy for an insolvency practitioner, who has not been involved in a particular liquidation, to say, with the benefit of the wisdom of hindsight, how he could have done better. It would plainly be undesirable to encourage an application to remove a liquidator on such grounds. It would mean that any liquidator who was appointed, in circumstances where there was support for another possible liquidator, would spend much of his time looking over his shoulder, and there would be a risk of the court being flooded with applications of this sort. Further, the court has to bear in mind that in almost any case where it orders a liquidator to stand down, and replaces him with another liquidator, there will be undesirable consequences in terms of costs and in terms of delay. ‘
Mr Justice Neuberger
Times 13-Aug-2002, Gazette 19-Sep-2002, [2002] EWHC 1989 (Ch)
Insolvency Act 1986 108(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
Followed – In re Keypak Homecare Ltd ChD 1987
The court considered an application under section 108 to remove the liquidator, and reviewed the case law on the topic: ‘The section authorises the court to remove the liquidator ‘on cause shown’. That is not the same as saying ‘if the court shall . .
Cited by:
Cited – Quickson (South and West) Limited v Stephen Mark Katz, John Stephen Kelmanson (As Joint Liquidators of Buildlead Limited) ChD 25-Aug-2004
Various applications were made in the insolvency, including for removal of the liquidators and declarations that certain payments were a fraudulent preference on the creditors.
Held: No prejudice had been shown by any procedural irregularity. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insolvency
Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.174700
