![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Official Receiver v.Wadge Rapps & Hunt (a firm) & Anor [2003] UKHL 49 (31 July 2003) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/49.html Cite as: [2003] 4 All ER 18, [2003] 2 BCLC 257, [2004] AC 158, [2004] 1 AC 158, [2004] BPIR 139, [2003] UKHL 49, [2003] BCC 659, [2003] 3 WLR 767 |
[New search]
[Context]
[Printable version]
[Buy ICLR report: [2003] 3 WLR 767]
[Buy ICLR report: [2004] 1 AC 158]
[Help]
Judgments -
Official Receiver (Appellant) v. Wadge Rapps & Hunt (a firm) and another and two other actions
|
HOUSE OF LORDS |
SESSION 2002-03 |
OPINIONS
OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL
FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE
Official Receiver (Appellant) v. Wadge Rapps & Hunt (a firm) and another and two other actions
ON
THURSDAY 31 JULY 2003
The Appellate Committee comprised:
Lord Steyn
Lord Hoffmann
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Millett
Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
LORD STEYN
My Lords,
LORD HOFFMANN
My Lords,
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD
My Lords,
LORD MILLETT
My Lords,
The facts
(i)
Proceedings for a Discretionary Disqualification Order
Proceedings for a Mandatory Disqualification Order
The Official Receiver
Investigation and Report
Public Examination
The judge had disallowed a question on the ground that the answers would not assist in the collection of the debtor's assets. At p 92 Lord Hanworth rejected this as a sufficient ground for disallowing the question on the ground that it excluded:
Disqualification Proceedings
The Functions of the Liquidator
The words "in relation to the winding up" are wider than "in the winding up." Since the official receiver is ex hypothesi not the liquidator in the case envisaged, "his functions in relation to the winding up" cannot extend, still less be limited, to the collection, realisation and distribution of the company's assets. They must encompass the functions which are conferred on him in the public interest in relation to the company which is being wound up, including the investigation into the reasons for the company's failure and the conduct of those concerned in its management. It does not stretch the language of the section to read it as including the official receiver's functions under section 7 of the Disqualification Act.
In consequence insolvency proceedings:
Criminal Proceedings
Public Examination
It was held that the effect of this section was that the court could direct a public examination on the application of the liquidator in a voluntary winding up: see In re Campbell Coverings Ltd [1953] Ch 488 CA and In re Campbell Coverings (No 2) [1954] Ch 255. Section 307 has been re-enacted as Section 112 of the Insolvency Act and has the same effect: see Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd v Maxwell [1993] Ch 1, 24 and 46.
Investigation and Report
Section 236
The expression "office-holder" is defined in section 234(1) to mean the administrator, administrative receiver, liquidator or provisional liquidator of the company as the case may be. Where the company is being wound up by the court in England and Wales section 236(1) extends the expression to include the official receiver whether or not he is the liquidator.
The Judgment of the Court of Appeal
The First Reason
The Second Reason
Conclusion
LORD WALKER OF GESTINGTHORPE
My Lords,
A further report might lead to the public examination of a company promoter, director or officer, but only if the official receiver stated that in his opinion fraud had been committed. The provisions of section 8 of the 1890 Act can be traced through to sections 132 and 133 of the Insolvency Act, although the making of a report by the official receiver is now optional, and is fairly rare in practice. The procedure for public examination was little used in the middle of the 20th century but the Cork Committee perceived possible advantages in reinvigorating it: see In re Seagull Manufacturing Co Ltd (in liquidation) [1993] Ch 345 (especially the submissions of counsel for the official receiver at p.349).