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 to that, and I do not think that the late Master of the Rolls in the case of In re Sir John Moore Gold Mining Company ((1879) 12 ChD 325 at 331), which has been cited, intended to give an exhaustive definition.’ (Cotton LJ). It is not necessary in order to justify the court under the section in removing the liquidator that there should be anything against the individual. However, in this case the liquidator: ‘may consider that the judgment of this Court is not based in any way on the possibility of any reflection upon himself, either in his conduct in this matter or in his general fitness to be a liquidator of any honourable company in the kingdom – his character is clear.’ and ‘In many cases, no doubt, and very likely, for anything I know in most cases, unfitness of the liquidator will be the general form which the cause will take upon which the Court in this class of case acts, but that is not the definition of due cause shewn. In order to define ‘due cause shewn’ you must look wider afield, and see what is the purpose for which the liquidator is appointed. To my mind the Lord Justice has correctly intimated that the due cause is to be measured by reference to the real, substantial, honest interests of the liquidation, and to the purpose for which the liquidator is appointed. Of course, fair play to the liquidator himself is not to be left out of sight, but the measure of due cause is the substantial and real interest of the liquidation.’ (Bowen LJ)
Judges:
Cotton LJ, Bowen LJ
Citations:
(1887) 36 Ch D 299, [1887] UKLawRpCh 148, (1887) 57 LJCh 127
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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:
Cited – In 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 . .
Approved – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insolvency, Company
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.215940
