The Court was asked whether a contributory was entitled to set off a debt due to him from the company against calls made against him both by the company before the commencement of its liquidation and by the liquidator after the commencement of its liquidation.
Held: Section 38 gave rise to a ‘debt due to the liquidator’ which could not therefore be the subject of set-off against a debt due from the company. As to the statutory liability to calls made by a liquidator for the purpose of enforcing the liability under section 38: ‘That is a new liability; he is to contribute; it is a new contribution. It is a mistake to call that a debt due to the company. It is no such thing. It is not, as has been supposed, in any shape or way a debt due to the company, but it is a liability to contribute to the assets of the company; and when we look further into the Act, it will be seen that it is a liability to contribution to be enforced by the liquidator. It is quite true that a call made before the winding up – and in the case before me a call was made before the winding up – is a debt due to the company, but that does not affect this new liability to contribution.’
Sir George Jessel MR
(1878) 9 Ch D 595
Companies Act 1862 38
England and Wales
Distinguished in part – In re Pyle Works CA 1890
The court was asked about a mortgage of the uncalled amounts on some partly paid shares and all the present and future property of the company. The issue was whether the mortgages extended to the calls to be made by the liquidator in the winding up . .
Cited – LB Holdings Intermediate 2 Ltd, The Joint Administrators of v Lehman Brothers International (Europe), The Joint Administrators of and Others SC 17-May-2017
In the course of the insolvent administration of the bank, substantial additional sums were received. Parties appealed against some orders made on the application to court for directions as to what was to be done with the surplus.
Held: The . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 February 2021; Ref: scu.641429