header-logo header-logo

31 May 2012
Issue: 7516 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Company

MK Airlines Property Ltd (in administration) v Katz and another [2012] All ER (D) 142 (May)

The principle in Re Lundy Granite Co, ex p Heavan (1871) 6 Ch App 462 could apply to a provisional liquidation. The landlord would not, in all cases, be entitled to priority: it would always depend upon whether or not the administrator, provisional liquidator or liquidator had either retained the property for the purpose of advantageous disposal of it, or had continued to use it. Doing nothing would not suffice.

The principle applied, not only when the liquidator retained the property for the benefit of the liquidation, but also when he continued to use it. It would be anomalous if the position differed as between administration and liquidation on the one hand and provisional liquidation on the other. Provisional liquidators were not mere caretakers, incapable of taking decisions for the benefit of the company.
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll