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 think fit’. There is a burden on the applicant to show why the liquidator should be removed.’ However, the words of the statute are very wide, and it would be dangerous and wrong for a court to seek to limit or define the kind of cause required; and it may be appropriate to remove a liquidator even though nothing can be said against him, either personally or in his conduct of the particular liquidation.
Judges:
Millett J
Citations:
[1987] BCLC 409
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Re Adam Eyton Ltd CA 7-Jul-1887
In considering the removal of a liquidator, the court referred to the John Moore Gold case: ‘In my opinion, although of course unfitness discovered in a particular person would be a ground for removing him, yet the power of removal is not confined . .
Cited – Marseilles Extension Rly and Land Co 1867
The court considered the circumstances when a liquidator could be removed. The words ‘due cause’ did not require anything amounting to misconduct or personal unfitness. It was sufficient if it could be shown that it was on the whole desirable that a . .
Cited – Re Sir John Moore Gold Mining Co CA 1879
The court considered an appeal against an order removing the liquidator: ‘I should say that, as a general rule, [the words ‘on cause shown’] point to some unfitness of the person – it may be from personal character, or from his connection with other . .
Cited by:
Followed – AMP Enterprises Ltd v Hoffman and Another ChD 25-Jul-2002
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, . .
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. . .
Approved – In 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 . .
Applied – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insolvency, Company
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.182075