The issue in this case was who should bear the ultimate liability for the joint liquidators’ remuneration, costs, fees and expenses (the “Liquidators’ Remuneration”) where their appointment had been subsequently set aside by the Court of Appeal. The Appeal was the Company’s from the decision of the Commercial Judge who found that he did not have jurisdiction to order that a petitioning creditor be made ultimately liable for the Liquidators’ Remuneration. The Company argued on appeal that jurisdiction existed under either S. 233(4) of the Insolvency Act (the statutory jurisdiction point) or alternatively, in the exercise of the Court’s costs jurisdiction under Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”) 64.3 (the costs jurisdiction point). Further, it accepted that there was no good reason in principle or policy why a petitioning creditor should not be ordered to pay the Liquidators Remuneration especially where the appointment had been subsequently set aside because it had been wrongly obtained and was consequently an abuse of process.
To continue reading full articles in PDF format:
Pacific China Holdings Limited (the Company) -v- Grand Pacific Holdings Limited HCVAO2010/039