The official receiver began director disqualification proceedings, but before the proceedings commenced, the company was wound up. Where, on an application for the disqualification of a director, the official receiver and the Secretary of State became aware that the company had in fact already been dissolved, the normal course would be to transfer the proceedings from the County Court to the High Court and to substitute the Secretary of State as applicant in the place of the official receiver.
The court gave guidance on the application of section 42(1)(b) of the 1984 Act, saying: ‘provided proceedings are started within the time permitted by the statute of limitations, are not frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the process of the court and disclose a cause of action, they will not as a rule be struck out because of some mistake in procedure on the part of the plaintiff or his advisers . . No injustice is involved to the defendant in transferring an action which has been started in the wrong court to the correct court.’
Judges:
Simon Brown, Waite, Morritt LJ
Citations:
[1996] EWCA Civ 782, [1998] 1 BCLC 208
Statutes:
County Courts Act 1984 40 42(1)(b), Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 6, Insolvency Act 1986 205(2)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In Re the Working Project Ltd; In Re Fosterdown Ltd and Others ChD 27-Oct-1994
Company disqualification proceedings may conclude in the county court after a winding up of the company in that court. The power to disqualify directors survives the finishing of the winding up of the company, even though the Official Receiver had . .
Cited by:
Cited – Schmidt v Wong CA 7-Dec-2005
The claimant began a personal injury claim against her landlord. She wanted a freezing order, but began her claim in the County court. When she became aware that the county court had no jurisdiction to grant such an order, he sought to have the . .
Cited – Howarth v Gwent Constabulary and Another QBD 1-Nov-2011
The claimant alleged malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office against the defendant. He had been charged with perverting the course of justice. He had worked for a firm of solicitors specialising in defending road traffic prosecutions. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Company, Insolvency
Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.237553