Akers v LomasAlso known as:Trading Partners Ltd, ReChancery DivisionCase AnalysisWhere Reported 1 B.C.L.C. 655;  B.P.I.R. 606; Official TranscriptCase Digest
Keywords: Administrative receivers; Disclosure; Documents
Summary: administrative receivers; disclosure; working papers of administrative receiver; entitlement of liquidator of linked company to disclosure
Abstract: A, one of the liquidators of a company, TPL, incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, sought an order pursuant to the Insolvency Act 1986 s.236(3) for production of the working papers and litigation related documents held by R, the administrative receivers appointed in relation to a linked company. R opposed the application, contending that s.236(3) was directed to those records which formed part of the property of the company and did not encompass documents which came into existence after a company became insolvent or following the appointment of one of the specified categories of office holder.
Held, granting the application, that s.236 formed part of a composite code designed to enable office holders to extract information from any person the court considered able to produce orally, or by way of documentation, http://www.ukassignment.org/ relevant information to assist in the winding up of the company, British & Commonwealth Holdings Plc (Joint Administrators) v Spicer & Oppenheim  A.C. 426 applied and North Australian Territory Co, Re (1890) L.R. 45 Ch. D. 87 and Rolls Razor Ltd (No.2), Re  Ch. 576 considered. In seeking to determine such an application the court should adopt a conservative approach and ensure that the office holder seeking production reasonably required the information sought to assist in the performance of his duties. There were strong public interest considerations in enabling A to formulate the material needed to ascertain precisely which assets were held by TPL and assert any relevant claims. Disclosure should not however extend to any documents liable to reveal the strategy adopted by the receivers in the receivership.
Judge: Patten, J.
Counsel: For A: Ewan McQuater. For L: Matthew Collings
Solicitor: For A: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. For L: Denton Wilde Sapte Significant Cases Cited
British & Commonwealth Holdings Plc (Joint Administrators) v Spicer & Oppenheim A.C. 426;  3 W.L.R. 853;  4 All E.R. 876;  B.C.C. 977;  B.C.L.C. 168; (1992) 142 N.L.J. 1611; Times, November 3, 1992; (HL)North Australian Territory Co, Re(1890) L.R. 45 Ch. D. 87; (CA)
Rolls Razor Ltd (No.2), Re Ch. 576;  2 W.L.R. 100;  3 All E.R. 1386; (1969) 113 S.J. 938; (Ch D)Legislation CitedCompanies Act 1862 s.115Insolvency Act 1986 (c.45) s.234(2)#p#分页标题#e#Insolvency Act 1986 (c.45) s.235Insolvency Act 1986 (c.45) s.235(3)(e)Insolvency Act 1986 (c.45) s.236Insolvency Act 1986 (c.45) s.236(2)Insolvency Act 1986 (c.45) s.236(3)Insolvency Act 1986 (c.45) s.426Insolvency Act 1986 (c.45) s.426(4)Journal ArticlesScope of Insolvency Act 1986, section 236Appointments; Disclosure; Foreign jurisdictions; Liquidators.Bus. L.B. 2002, 56(Mar), 6© 2008 Sweet & Maxwell Ltd