Our website is set to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click "Continue" or simply continue browsing. Continue.

Insolvency Law

Expert guidance on all aspects of corporate and personal insolvency

Guildhall Chambers , 03 MAR 2015

Price and Another v Davis and Another [2014] EWCA Civ 26; [2014] BPIR 494

Price and Another v Davis and Another [2014] EWCA Civ 26; [2014] BPIR 494
(Court of Appeal, Arden LJ, Davis LJ, Sullivan LJ, 21 January 2014).


The ‘statutory binding’ provided for by s 260 IA applied to an IVA agreed at a ‘further creditors’ meeting’ convened under s 262(4)(b) IA.

Mr and Mrs Davis had obtained the protection of interim orders pursuant to s 252 IA prior to having IVAs approved by their creditors. The Appellants (Mr and Mrs Price) who were creditors of the Davis successfully challenged the valuations given to their claims under s 262 IA.

The DJ discharged the interim order, suspended the creditors’ approvals of the IVAs and ordered a further creditors’ meeting under s 262(4)(b) IA. That suspension was to end upon approval of the varied IVAs. As the successful parties, Mr and Mrs Price acquired a further debt in respect of their costs. They did not vote in respect of this debt at the further meeting. Mr and Mrs Price then served statutory demands upon the Mr and Mrs Davis for non-payment of their costs liability.

The matter came before the Court of Appeal where Mr and Mrs Price argued that because the original approval of the IVA had been suspended, only those creditors bound by the original IVA were bound by the IVA as subsequently varied.

The Davis argued that they were not bound by the IVA in respect of those costs because the IVA only bound the original members of the IVA and that IVA had been suspended not revoked.

The Court of Appeal decided that the real question was whether s 260 IA bound creditors of an IVA agreed at a further meeting under s 262 IA. The court accepted that on a literal interpretation of s 260, only IVAs agreed at the original meeting would be binding. However, the court also found that such an interpretation would create anomalies which could not have been Parliament’s intention.

Accordingly, Arden LJ held that the reference to ‘a “further meeting” in s 262(4)(b) in relation to a nominee is to be read as a “further meeting under s 257”’.

As a result, the district judge had been right to find that Mr and Mrs Price were bound by the IVAs and was correct to have set aside the statutory demands.
Guildhall Chambers
Individual Voluntary Arrangements

Individual Voluntary Arrangements

"This is the ultimate statement of where the law on IVAs is to be found in our great common law...

Available in Insolvency Law Online
Bankruptcy and Personal Insolvency Reports

Bankruptcy and Personal Insolvency Reports

"BPIR is an excellent series, of interest to both corporate and personal insolvency lawyers,...

More Info from £166.00
Available in Insolvency Law Online
Subscribe to our newsletters