- Failing to set out basic allegations leads to strike out in insolvency proceedings (Sampathkumar v Wildwood CR)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- The section 423 application
- The removal of the unilateral notice pursuant to the court’s inherent jurisdiction
- Case details
Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This case involved an insolvency application seeking relief under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) in relation to the transfer of a leasehold property. The application was, however, struck out for a complete failure to allege that there was a transaction at an undervalue of any sort. The judge addressed the importance of setting out the alleged facts relied upon to show that the requirements of a particular cause of action are met. The judgment also addressed whether the Insolvency and Companies List of the High Court had jurisdiction to exercise the court’s inherent power to order the removal of unilateral notices, and whether the court should do so where a specialist tribunal is already seized of such an application. Written by Poppy Rimington-Pounder, barrister at Radcliffe Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial