Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
In Eaton v Mitchells & Butler plc, the court was asked to strike out proceedings commenced by a discharged bankrupt in circumstances where the underlying cause of action was, and remained to be, vested in the claimant’s trustee in bankruptcy.
Eaton v Mitchells & Butler plc  Lexis Citation 173,  All ER (D) 103 (Aug)
A claimant issued personal injury proceedings, and won the trial on liability. Prior to the trial on damages came the realisation that the accident—and therefore the underlying cause of action—vested in the claimant’s trustee in bankruptcy, where a bankruptcy order had been made following the accident. The County Court was asked to strike out the proceedings as a nullity, or alternatively that it was an abuse of process for the proceedings to continue. The judge dismissed the application, giving the claimant three months in which to regularise the situation.
Mr Eaton commenced proceedings against Mitchells & Butler plc (M&B) in respect of serious injuries he suffered in an accident. The trial of liability occurred five years after the accident, resulting in judgment being entered in Mr Eaton’s favour, with the amount of damages to be subsequently decided by the court. Mr Eaton valued his claim at £3m, whereas M&B valued it in the region of £500,000.
It was disclosed during the proceedings that, three months after his accident, and before the proceedings were issued, Mr Eaton had been adjudged bankrupt on his own petition. However, despite this disclosure, no one involved in the case appreciated its effect—that the cause of action (being a hybrid claim as it sought damages for both personal injuries and consequential losses) had vested in the official receiver as Mr Eaton’s trustee in bankruptcy (trustee) under section 306 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). The cause of action had neither been assigned by the official receiver (OR) to Mr Eaton, nor was the OR a party to the proceedings.
The impact of Mr Eaton’s bankruptcy was picked up two years after the trial of liability by Mr Eaton’s new solicitors, and they informed M&B’s solicitors of this development.
M&B filed an appellant’s notice seeking permission to appeal the decision in the trial of liability. In response, Mr Eaton made an application seeking an annulment of his bankruptcy under IA 1986, s 282(1)(b) on the ground that the debts and expenses of the bankruptcy estate had been paid in full notwithstanding that—at that time—they had not. M&B applied to strike out the proceedings.
His Honour Judge Keyser QC, sitting in the county court at Wrexham, had to decide the following issues:
M&B submitted as follows:
Mr Eaton’s case was that the proceedings were not a nullity, and that the decisions in cases such as Ingall v Morgan were of no application in the current case. Notwithstanding that, it was accepted that the proceedings still had to be—and could be—regularised.
The first issue
The judge did not agree that the proceedings were a nullity. As a preliminary matter the expression ‘nullity’ meant something else—in this case, the claim was regularly issued and the proceedings were not a nullity. M&B’s actual complaint was that Mr Eaton did not have title to sue at the time the claim was issued, which was a different thing.
On that latter point, Ingall v Morgan dealt with narrow circumstances concerning whether a personal representative had title to sue before taking a grant of administration. The circumstances in the present case were different, and there was a chain of authority concerning bankruptcy cases (including Pickthall v Hill Dickinson  EWCA Civ 543,  All ER (D) 235 (Jun), Haq v Singh  EWCA Civ 957,  All ER (D) 394 (May), Pathania v Adedeji  EWCA Civ 681,  All ER (D) 01 (Jun), and Munday v Hilburn  EWHC 4496 (Ch)) where the decisions were inconsistent with Ingall v Morgan. There was no problem in itself of Mr Eaton having issued the proceedings when the cause of action vested in the OR.
The second issue
It was accepted by M&B that Mr Eaton did not know at the time of issue that the cause of action did not vest in him. The abuse of the Pickthall v Hill Dickinson kind did not therefore apply.
The judge agreed that the proceedings could not continue in their current state now that Mr Eaton was aware of the effect of the cause of action vesting in his trustee (Pathania v Adedeji). However, there was no rule of law that meant that the proceedings had to be struck out immediately.
The third issue
The judge commented that there were two obvious ways to cure the defect—the annulment of the bankruptcy, or the substitution of the OR as claimant in the proceedings.
A possible third option was for Mr Eaton to take an assignment of the cause of action from the OR. However, in this case, the judge’s view (it was not a point decided by him) was that was unlikely to be productive—the limitation period would have expired and, following Haq v Singh, the court would probably not permit any amendment to the pleadings dealing with the assignment.
Taking everything into account, the judge gave Mr Eaton three months in which to regularise the situation.
Insolvency professionals, particularly those specialising in personal insolvency, will already be aware that hybrid claims vest in trustees.
This case confirms that, where an individual (whether or not discharged from bankruptcy) commences a claim based on a cause of action that vests in his trustee, those proceedings are not a nullity.
Whether the court will then permit an amendment to the proceedings in circumstances where the individual’s bankruptcy has been annulled, or the trustee takes over the claim, will depend on whether the individual knew that the cause of action did not vest in them at the time the proceedings were issued. If they actually knew (as opposed to ought to have known), it is unlikely that an amendment will be permitted, as to commence (Pickthall v Hill Dickinson) or continue with (Pathania v Adedeji) proceedings in those circumstances will be an abuse.
The judge was amazed by just how far along this case had proceeded before the effect of Mr Eaton’s bankruptcy was finally appreciated.
While the outcome of this case will perhaps be unsurprising to insolvency professionals, it emphasises the need for non-insolvency litigators to ask at the time of being first instructed by an individual—and prior to issuing any claim:
If the cause of action remains vested in the individual’s trustee, enquiries should be made of the trustee to decide on how to proceed.
Stephen Leslie, solicitor in the Lexis®PSL Restructuring & Insolvency team.
If you are a LexisPSL subscriber, click the link below for further information:
What assets vest in the trustee in bankruptcy and what steps does the official receiver/trustee in bankruptcy need to take?
How do you annul a bankruptcy order and who can make the application?
Not a subscriber? Find out more about how LexisPSL can help you and click here for a free trial of LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency.
First published on LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency
0330 161 1234