In Re Edennote Ltd; Tottenham Hotspur plc v Ryman: ChD 1 Nov 1994

The company Edennote had been wound up on insolvency. It had a possible claim for fees against Tottenham, owned by Mr Sugare. The shareholder, Terry Venables, took an assignment of that action. An application was made to set aside the assignment and to remove the liquidator.
Held: The application succeeded. The assignment of the action had been against the expressed wishes of the creditors, who said that the action was worth more. The assignment was set aside and the liquidator was removed. The application to set the assignment aside could be commenced under either section 167 or 168.
A liquidator had to act in the interests of the general body of creditors, and might be removed if the creditors lost confidence in his ability to realise assets effectively and to pursue claims diligently.


Sir John Vinelott


[1995] 2 BCLC 248


Insolvency Act 1986 167(3) 168(5)


England and Wales


AppliedIn 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:

Appeal fromIn Re Edennote Ltd; Tottenham Hotspur plc v Ryman CA 21-May-1996
The company was in liquidation. Terence Venables, who had owned the shares, had taken an assignment of a cause of action against the football club. The court had set aside that assignment, and removed the liquidator. Venables now appealed saying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Company

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.346691