Misplaced Pages

Re Purpoint Ltd

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

Re Purpoint Ltd
CourtHigh Court
Citation BCLC 491
Keywords
Wrongful trading

Re Purpoint Ltd BCLC 491 is a UK insolvency law and company law case, concerning misfeasance and wrongful trading.

Facts

Wrongful trading cases
Re Produce Marketing Consortium Ltd (No 2) 5 BCC 569
Dorchester Finance Co Ltd v Stebbing BCLC 498
Re Purpoint Ltd BCLC 491
Re Hydrodan (Corby) Ltd 2 BCLC 180
Re Oasis Merchandising Services Ltd Ch 170
Re Brian D Pierson (Contractors) Ltd BCC 26
Re Cubelock Ltd BCC 523
Re Continental Assurance Co of London plc 2 BCLC 287
Brooks v Armstrong EWHC 2289 (Ch)
see United Kingdom insolvency law

The liquidator of Purpoint Ltd, a printing business, sued the former director Mr John Henry Meredith for wrongful trading and misfeasance under the Insolvency Act 1986 sections 212 and 214. Purpoint Ltd started trading in February 1986, with a plant and machinery, a printing press and two cars on hire purchase. Mr Meredith got a salary. Mr Meredith admitted the company was unable to pay its debts from December 1986. In May 1987, the accountants told him that he could be liable for trading while insolvent. In June Mr Meredith found a job with another firm. Purpoint Ltd ceased trading in November 1987 and went into liquidation in May 1988. The Inland Revenue's claims exhausted all the company's assets. The liquidator brought an action under section 214 and under section 212 claimed back money used to get the second car on hire purchase, which it said was not needed for the business; cash sums withdrawn in June and July 1987 and transactions between the company and the firm Mr Meredith left to work with.

Judgment

Vinelott J held that Mr Meredith was liable and ordered him to pay £12,666.79 under section 212 (£4k for the car, £5k for cash withdrawals and £3k for work done for the firm) and £53,572.15 plus interest under section 214. Under section 212 (1) the car was not bought for business use, and the purchase was a breach of duty (2) cash that could not be accounted for and used by Mr Meredith and his wife had to be repaid (3) on one transaction the new firm Mr Meredith had moved to make a profit at the company's expense. He had to disgorge this gain. Under section 214, because Mr Meredith clearly knew the company was insolvent by December 1986, he was liable for all trading losses after then. Lastly, there was nothing wrong with making orders under both section 212 and section 214. He said the answer to double recovery arguments is that money recouped under s 212 can be used to pay off the debts that existed before the clock started to run under section 214. The only proviso is that Mr Meredith would not be made to pay back more under section 212 than needed to meet the company's liabilities.

See also

Cases on recouping assets
Insolvency Act 1986 ss 127, 238-245, 423
Re Parkes Garage (Swadlincote) Ltd 1 Ch 139
Re Yeovil Glove Co Ltd Ch 148
Re Gray's Inn Construction Co Ltd 1 WLR 711
Re MC Bacon Ltd (No 1) BCLC 324
Arbuthnot Ltd v Havelet Ltd (No 2) BCC 36
Re Shoe Lace Ltd 1 BCLC 111
Phillips v Brewin Dolphin Bell Lawrie Ltd UKHL 2
Insolvency Act 1986 ss 212-215
Re Anglo-Austrian Printing Union 2 Ch 891
Re Produce Marketing Consortium Ltd (No 2) BCLC 520
Re Oasis Merchandising Services Ltd 2 BCLC 493
Re Purpoint Ltd BCC 121
Morphites v Bernasconi 2 WLR 1521
see Unlawful trading and UK insolvency law

Notes

References

Categories:
Re Purpoint Ltd Add topic