Restoring to the register of companies under CA 2006 (Davy v Pickering and others)

Restoring to the register of companies under CA 2006 (Davy v Pickering and others)

Guy Adams, barrister at St John’s Chambers, reviews the decision in Davy v Pickering, which concerns the directions and provisions the court can make when restoring a company to the register of companies, as specified under section 1032(3) of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006).

Original news

Davy v Pickering and others [2017] EWCA Civ 30, [2017] All ER (D) 104 (Jan)

The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellants’ appeal against a judge’s decision to restore a company to the register of companies, where the respondent sought to pursue a claim for compensation regarding alleged negligence on the part of the company. The court held that, on the evidence, it was not possible to conclude that the respondent would have taken the required acts against the company in the relevant time period.

What practical lessons can those advising take away from this case?

That in order to obtain a limitation direction upon the restoration of a company to the register it is necessary to establish a clear causal link between the dissolution of a company and the failure to bring proceedings within the applicable limitation period. Any application for limitation direction should therefore be supported by evidence that, but for the fact that the company had been struck off the register, proceedings would have been issued on a date within the relevant limitation period.

What was the background to the appeal?

Mr Davy, a former flight officer for BA, alleges that he was given negligent advice by a company, then called Heather Moor & Edgecomb Limited, to transfer his pension plan out of the BA company scheme in 2001. He further alleges that the company, which was owned and directed by Mr and Mrs Pickering, had transferred valuable assets to its shareholders and their pension trustee in 2010 at an undervalue. This left the company with no assets to meet any claim he might make at the time it was struck off the register in 2012.

What were the issues before the Court of Appeal?

The principal issue was whether it was sufficient, as the judge at first instance had found ([2

Subscription Form

Related Articles:
Latest Articles:

Already a subscriber? Login
RELX (UK) Limited, trading as LexisNexis, and our LexisNexis Legal & Professional group companies will contact you to confirm your email address. You can manage your communication preferences via our Preference Centre. You can learn more about how we handle your personal data and your rights by reviewing our  Privacy Policy.

Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.

Read full article

Already a subscriber? Login

About the author:
Kathy specialises in restructuring and cross-border insolvency. She qualified as a solicitor in 1995 and has since worked for Weil Gotshal & Manges and Freshfields. Kathy has worked on some of the largest restructuring cases in the last decade, including Worldcom, Parmalat, Enron and Eurotunnel.