Vaughan Williams J said: ‘One knows that where there is a liquidation of one concern the general principle is – ascertain what is the domicile of the company in liquidation; let the court of the country of domicile act as the principal court to govern the liquidation; and let the other courts act as ancillary, as far as they can, to the principal liquidation. But although that is so, it has always been held that the desire to assist in the main liquidation – the desire to act as ancillary to the court where the main liquidation is going on – will not ever make the court give up the forensic rules which govern the conduct of its own liquidation.'(
Vaughan Williams J
 3 Ch 385
Cited – Cape Plc and Others, Re Companies Act 1985 ChD 16-Jun-2006
The court was asked to sanction a scheme of arrangements, and particularly to approve a proposed scheme which itself contained the power to make amendments to the scheme.
Held: The court did have power to sanction such a proposed scheme of . .
 EWHC 1446 (Ch), Times 05-Jul-06
Cited – McGrath and others v Riddell and others HL 9-Apr-2008
HIH, an Australian Insurance company, became insolvent. An order was sought for the collection and remission of it assets in England.
Held: Once it was accepted that an English court may order the liquidator here to remit funds to a foreign . .
Times 09-Apr-08,  UKHL 21,  1 WLR 852,  BPIR 581,  Lloyd’s Rep IR 756,  BCC 349,  3 All ER 869,  Bus LR 905
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.244199