Leicester v Lyedale Ltd Liquidators & Anor

Permission to appeal requires a real prospect of success. The court assesses that threshold on proper evidence; allegations of fraud, forgery or ownership cannot rest on assertion. Courts generally determine identified disputes rather than require persons to prove general compliance with the law. Relief must be sought against the proper person, for appropriate relief and on notice. A winding-up will not ordinarily be stayed unless the creditors have been paid or consent and the shareholders consent. Filing liquidation resolutions at Companies House does not itself determine their validity. Article 6 does not create a substantive domestic right.

Mr Royston David Leicester sought permission to appeal several orders of the Chancery Division concerning the liquidations of Lyedale Ltd and Wilton Fair Ltd. The orders addressed applications for evidence of lawful liquidation, declaratory relief, stays of winding-up proceedings, annulment, alleged seizure of property in France, and case management of a pending appeal.

The challenged orders were made by Rimer J on 30 March 2001, Ferris J on 6 July 2001, Evans-Lombe J on 17 December 2001 and Jacob J on 2 November 2001. The central issue was whether any proposed appeal had a real prospect of success and whether the Court of Appeal could entertain the additional relief sought.

All applications for permission to appeal were refused. The Court of Appeal directed that a copy of the transcript be provided to Mr Leicester at public expense.

1. Threshold and jurisdiction. The threshold for permission was whether there was a real prospect of success on appeal. The hearing was not the hearing of an appeal, so the court had no jurisdiction to make substantive appellate orders. It also could not entertain a new application to set aside earlier High Court orders for fraud.
2. General compliance and evidence. The courts’ function was generally to settle disputes, not require persons to demonstrate compliance with the law. Any challenge to the validity of a winding-up or liquidation had to identify the relevant respondent, seek appropriate relief and proceed on notice. Allegations of fraud, forgery or invalidity required proper evidence. The court could act only on evidence, not assertion.
3. Liquidation and winding-up. The validity of a voluntary liquidation resolution did not depend on filing the resolutions at Companies House. A challenge based on lack of notice to a shareholder required evidence, which might include company searches, inquiries of the liquidators and inspection of the shareholder register. A winding-up would not be stayed unless the creditors had been paid in full or agreed to a stay and the shareholders had also agreed.
4. Ownership and case management. The Court of Appeal could not find a prospect of success in challenges to ownership of the debt or property in France without evidence undermining the High Court’s conclusions. An appeal against the case-management order concerning the pending appeal required a tenable argument that the order was perverse. None of the proposed appeals met the threshold.
5. Article 6. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights did not guarantee the content of a particular domestic right. Mr Leicester therefore had to establish a right under English law before relying on Article 6.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2002] EWCA Civ 471, 12 March 2002: Lady Justice Arden refused permission to appeal against all four High Court orders.
• High Court, Chancery Division (Bankruptcy) — Rimer J, Ferris J, Evans-Lombe J and Jacob J made the respective orders dated 30 March 2001, 6 July 2001, 17 December 2001 and 2 November 2001. Permission to appeal was refused in the High Court.