Manolete Case Study: Court Confirms Misfeasance Claims Procedure (Hybrid Insolvency Applications)

The High Court, per Chief ICC Judge Briggs, held that Manolete Partners could not advance misfeasance claims under section 212 Insolvency Act 1986 via an Insolvency Application, and instead had to pursue them under CPR Part 7, ordering payment of the full Part 7 issue fee despite procedural arguments about hybrid claims brought in insolvency proceedings.

Manolete Partners Plc v Sampson Coward LLP High Court Refuses Summary Judgment in £2m Escrow Breach Claim

Manolete Case Study: Court Refuses Summary Judgment in £2m Escrow Breach Claim (Breach of Undertaking)

The High Court refused Sampson Coward LLP’s application for summary judgment in Manolete Partners Plc v Sampson Coward LLP [2023] EWHC 37 (Ch), allowing a £2 million claim concerning alleged mismanagement of escrow accounts during UK Property and Land Specialists Ltd’s insolvency to proceed. The ruling highlights the complexity of fiduciary breaches in escrow arrangements and confirms assignees’ rights to pursue breach of undertaking claims under the Insolvency Act 1986.

manolete partners insolvency winding up petition bankruptcy solicitor barrister lawyer london high court

Manolete Case Study: Director Ordered to Repay Preferential Payment (s.239 Insolvency Act 1986)

The High Court ordered former director Simon Thacker to repay £33,542.20 after benefiting from the extinguishing of his director’s loan account, which was ruled a preference under s.239 Insolvency Act 1986. In contrast, claims against fellow director David Coleman were dismissed after he successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of desire to prefer, despite having received £15,000 shortly before insolvency.

McGuinness & Anor v Goldentree Financial Services PLC & Anor [2025] EWHC 870 (Ch)

Case Study: Commercial Lender Defeats Consumer Credit Claim (McGuiness v Goldentree 2025)

McGuinness v Goldentree [2025] EWHC 870 (Ch) clarifies investment property loan exemptions under Article 61A FSMA 2000. The High Court struck out regulatory challenges to commercial development finance, confirming contemporaneous evidence establishes business purposes. The judgment reinforces that former directors lack litigation authority during administration without administrator consent. This decision protects legitimate commercial lending from spurious consumer credit challenges whilst emphasising robust documentation practices for development finance practitioners.