The respondents were the liquidators of a company which the appellant bank climbed old substantial monies. The insolvent company had several subsidiaries and sub-subsidiaries, holding further assets. The respondent first sought an order requiring the production of certain documents to assist with the liquidation. Those orders were discharged after compromise agreements. The respondent then sought yet further disclosures, and the court made an order in very wide terms which would permit disclosure of any documents thought reasonably beneficial to the winding up, and those subsidiary or sub-subsidiary companies might in turn also disclose them if required to do so in other legal proceedings. The appellant now said that the order was too wide.
Held: The appeal failed. The wide power of disclosure was necessary to avoid the court becoming bogged down in the minutiae of constant squabbles over the relevance of particular documents.
 BCLC 59, Times 30-May-1988, 1988 PCC 443
England and Wales
See Also – In Re Esal (Commodities) Ltd CA 1989
See Also – Re Esal (Commodities) Ltd (No 2) ChD 1990
The company was wound up massively insolvent. The liquidators obtained orders for the private examination of an officer of the bank, who had undertaken an investigation into the bank’s relationship with the company before it’s liquidation. The bank . .
See Also – Re Esal (Commodities) Ltd (No 2) CA 2-Jan-1990
the principal purpose of the powers to compel third parties to provide material to office-holders under sections 235, 236 and 366 is to assist with the beneficial winding up of the company or bankruptcy of the individual in question . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622389