Section 163 provided ‘any . . distress or execution put in force against the estate or effects of the company after the commencement of the winding up shall be void to all intents.’ After the presentation of a petition, the commencement of a compulsory winding up, but before the winding up order, the lessor of land of which the company was the beneficial tenant levied a distress upon the company’s goods for arrears of rent. The liquidator claimed that the distress was void under the statute.
Held: It had a discretionary power to validate the distress. It derived this power from section 87, which provided that after a winding up order, no ‘suit action or other proceeding’ should be proceeded with or commenced against the company without the leave of the court. Turner LJ: ‘I also concur in the decision of the Master of the Rolls. I think the 163rd section of the Act must be construed as only avoiding attachments, sequestrations, distresses or executions when leave to put them in force has not been given under the 87th section.’
Judges:
Turner LJ
Citations:
(1864) 4 De G J and S 377
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Kahn and Another v Commissioners of Inland Revenue; In re Toshoku Finance plc HL 20-Feb-2002
A company went into liquidation, being owed substantial sums by another company in the same group, but itself insolvent. A settlement did not include accrued interest, but was claimed to be taxed as if it had, and on an accruals basis. If so, was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company, Insolvency
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.190093