Some 'strange' insolvency/company judgments - Re Neptune and Hellard v. Money,
The award for most whacky company/insolvency judgment must go to Mr Justice Lightman for his decision in Neptune (Vehicle Washing Equipment) Ltd. v Fitzgerald  Ch. 274. The case has caused many an undergraduate pause for thought with its Tolkien inspired Gollum/Smeagol like approach to directorial behaviour in one man companies, i.e. where a director held a meeting alone where the declaration required by section 317 Companies Act 1985 “was to be made to himself, although not necessarily aloud.”
Another strange insolvency and disclosure related case is that of Kevin Hellard and Kevin Goldfarb v (1) Neil Money (2) Geoffrey Robbins  EWHC 2275 (Ch),  BPIR 1487. The case concenred insolvency practitioners remuneration, misconduct and disclosure of meta data to a bondsman and an RPB. Particular consternation arises in relation to the REPORTED JUDGMENT because it was held in the case that disclosure of certain information to an RPB would be inappropriate. It was felt that the RPB should be made aware of the information for regulatory purposes, i.e. investigating allegedlly miscreant IP behaviour. The judge (Lewison, J) held that the material should not be disclosed to the RPB. One knows about the materials and the disclosure point because the facts are now outlined in a reported decision. The whole world can read about the facts. That is if they subsrcibe to the magnificent BPIR law reports, available from all good bookshops!
"This is the ultimate statement of where the law on IVAs is to be found in our great common law...