| Re Conegrade Ltd | |
|---|---|
.svg) | |
| Court | Court of Appeal of England and Wales |
| Citations | EWHC 2411 (Ch), BPIR 358 |
| Keywords | |
| Insolvency, voidable transaction | |
Re Conegrade Ltd or Saxton v Clarke EWHC 2411 (Ch) is a UK insolvency law case, concerning voidable transactions.
Facts
Conegrade Ltd was a small engineering company. It had four directors, two of which were Mr and Mrs Clarke. Conegrade Ltd had a loan account, which included debts for loans by directors to the company. All board members attended a vote, and voted in favour, of selling a freehold property in Station Road, Uppingham, worth £125,000 to Mr and Mrs Clarke. These two directors would then lease the property back to the company, but they paid only £64,808, which was the balance in the loan account. This settled a debt owed by the company to the Clarkes. Conegrade Ltd was insolvent within a year or so. The liquidators argued the transaction was a preference under IA 1986 section 239.
Judgment
Lloyd J held that the only compelling reason for the transfer was the rightly presumed desire to place Mr and Mrs Clarke in a better position, above the creditors.
See also
| Voidable transaction cases | |
|---|---|
| Insolvency Act 1986 s 127 | |
| Re Gray’s Inn Construction Co Ltd 1 WLR 711 | |
| Coutts & Co v Stock EWHC Ch 191 | |
| Hollicourt Ltd v Bank of Ireland EWCA Civ 263 | |
| Akers v Samba Financial Group UKSC 6 | |
| Insolvency Act 1986 s 238 | |
| Phillips v Brewin Dolphin Bell Lawrie Ltd UKHL 2 | |
| R v McCredie 2 BCLC 438 | |
| Insolvency Act 1986 423 | |
| Arbuthnot Ltd v Havelet Ltd (No 2) BCC 36 | |
| Alderson v Temple (1768) 96 ER 384 | |
| see UK insolvency law |
Notes
- A Dignam and J Lowry, Company Law (2012) 476