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 liquidator should be removed. It was a serious and valid objection to the liquidator’s efficiency that a considerable number of the creditors were opposed to his continuance in office: ‘I am of opinion that under the 141st section of the Act I have a discretionary power to remove the liquidators appointed by the company. The question is, what is meant by the words ‘On due cause shewn’? On one side it is contended that ‘due cause’ must be something amounting to misconduct or personal unfitness; on the other side it is contended, and I think that the contention is borne out by the case of Ex parte Pullbrook, that the Court may take all the circumstances into consideration and if it finds that it is, upon the whole, desirable that a liquidator should be removed, it may remove him.’


Malins V-C


(1867) LR 4 Eq 692


Companies Act 1862 141

Cited by:

CitedIn 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 . .
CitedQuickson (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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.215938