Disputes arose between shareholders in a family company. Proceedings which expressly excluded the company were settled, but the company became insolvent. A later settlement was refused approval by the judge without the creditors consent. The claimant now sought a declaration that the earlier compromise bound the company. The company argued that the agreement was conditional upon its approval, and was therefore not binding.
Held: Proceedings might be settled in many ways. A Tomlin order gives effect to a pre-existing agreement. It was not conditional. It was argued that the agreement was unenforceable as illegal, breaching prohibitions in the 1985 Act. Any difficulties were capable of being cured, and the agreement was not unlawful.
The Vice-Chancellor
[2002] EWHC 1975 (Ch)
Bailii
Insolvency Act 1986 11(3)(d), Companies Act 1985 143(1) 151(1) 459
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Binder v Alachouzos CA 1972
A contract recited that the parties had been advised by solicitors and counsel that the Moneylenders Acts did not apply to transactions which were the subject of legal proceedings between them, and went on to provide for a compromise.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insolvency, Company
Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.177332
