Tag: Manolete Partners

Manolete Partners Plc v Trevor Howarth

Success: Defence of Manolete Director Repayment Claim

In Manolete Partners Plc v Trevor Howarth [2024] EWHC 2294 (Ch), the High Court dismissed a £101,000 claim against the former CEO of One Legal Services. Manolete alleged that repayments to Mr Howarth’s director loan account during the firm’s CVA were unlawful preferences under the Insolvency Act 1986. Judge Barber disagreed, holding the payments were made in good faith.

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.

Director Win Manolete Claim: Court of Appeal judgment folder with balance scale tipped in favor of the director, symbolizing the evidential failure of the £849k insolvency claim.

Success: Director Win against Manolete’s Additional Sales Insolvency Claim

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s dismissal of Manolete Partners’ £849,278 claim against director Ebrahim Dalal, finding the evidence for alleged unreported sales too weak to meet the civil standard of proof. The case underscores the evidential challenges liquidators face when pursuing directors for purported accounting deficiencies.