Girdhar and Parekh v Bradstock  EWHC 1321 (Ch)
An unauthorised modification in an IVA proposal, if proven, would constitute nothing more than a material irregularity and would not invalidate the IVA.
The Second Claimant (‘P’) proposed an IVA which was subsequently approved at the meeting albeit with a modification. Payments were made under the IVA and it was twice varied at P’s request. P failed to honour his obligations under the IVA and P’s nominee petitioned for his bankruptcy.
P subsequently sought declarations that the IVA was a nullity as (i) he had not provided consent to the modification contained in the original IVA and (ii) the Chairman had used an unauthorised proxy vote to support the inclusion of the modification.
The court dismissed P’s claim holding against him on the facts. It did however also hold that had P made out his case then the acts complained of by P would have constituted nothing more than a material irregularity for the purposes of s 262 IA. In those circumstances, the order would have remained valid until there was an order revoking or suspending the IVA.
"This is the ultimate statement of where the law on IVAs is to be found in our great common law...