judgment debt – enforcement to recover judgment debt – judgment debt outstanding – company subject to judgment debt went into voluntary liquidation – expiry of enforcement order under court rules – expiry of enforcement order means there is nothing left in force to amend or vary or extend – enforcement order to recover judgment debt under court rules cannot last for longer than 1 year – to enforce judgment debt against liquidated company an application must be made under Schedule 7 Division 5 section 21 of Companies (Insolvency and Receivership) Act 2009 – no bar in seeking a new enforcement order after expiration of an earlier order but that order will be a new order and cannot be an extension of an earlier order unless an application to renew had been made before the expiration of the earlier order – in seeking a new enforcement order regard must be had to the applicable limitation provisions
powers of Registrar – Registrar has power to renew an enforcement order – Registrar does not have power to grant leave under Schedule 5 of Companies (Insolvency and Receivership) Act 2009 – only a judge of the High Court can grant leave under Schedule 5 of Companies (Insolvency and Receivership) Act 2009 to allow enforcement to continue after liquidation
company in liquidation – liability of company director of company in liquidation – joinder of former director of company in liquidation subject to judgment debt does not make that individual personally liable for the debts of that company – route through which a company director may be held personally liable for the debts of a company in liquidation is that prescribed in Schedule 7 Division 5 section 21 of Companies (Insolvency and Receivership) Act 2009 – procedure not followed
security for costs – appellant failed to pay security for costs – normally failure to pay security for costs should result in appeal being stayed and may be subject to formal dismissal – waiver of requirement for payment of security for costs – waiver to avoid further delay when matter can be disposed of during current sitting
conduct of party – appellants without legal representation during appeal – appellants self-represented during appeal – scandalous submissions by appellants – appellants resort to extreme positions when the case does not go their way – appellants suggesting there should be a commission of inquiry into the Court of Appeal – appellants suggesting that where any authority or individual does not agree with their submissions there is evidence of official corruption that must be investigated
costs – indemnity costs – inequitable to order appellants to pay costs on indemnity basis given conduct of respondent – respondent intent on maintaining corporate veil to escape personal liability rather than accepting responsibility for actions of her company where she was the only effective operator – appellants precluded from reaping the fruits of their judgment
Leave a Reply