(1)This section and the next apply where the liquidator has disclaimed property under section 178.
(2)An application under this section may be made to the court by—
(a)any person who claims an interest in the disclaimed property, or
(b)any person who is under any liability in respect of the disclaimed property, not being a liability discharged by the disclaimer.
(3)Subject as follows, the court may on the application make an order, on such terms as it thinks fit, for the vesting of the disclaimed property in, or for its delivery to—
(a)a person entitled to it or a trustee for such a person, or
(b)a person subject to such a liability as is mentioned in subsection (2)(b) or a trustee for such a person.
(4)The court shall not make an order under subsection (3)(b) except where it appears to the court that it would be just to do so for the purpose of compensating the person subject to the liability in respect of the disclaimer.
(5)The effect of any order under this section shall be taken into account in assessing for the purpose of section 178(6) the extent of any loss or damage sustained by any person in consequence of the disclaimer.
(6)An order under this section vesting property in any person need not be completed by conveyance, assignment or transfer.
Cases considering section 181 9
[2020] EWCA Civ 619 · 14 May 2020Interprets
The section governed the application which produced the vesting order following disclaimer. The validity of that final order was no longer open to challenge (see paras [41]-[43]).
A vesting order under the subsection transferred only the disclaimed estate and interest previously held by the dissolved company. It vested the equity of redemption subject to the registered charge and did not create a new unencumbered freehold (see paras [41]-[44]).
[2018] EWHC 3195 (Ch) · 22 November 2018
Confirms that a person claiming an interest in disclaimed property may apply for vesting or delivery. The court observed that the claimants had not made such an application and that it was at least arguable this might be their remedy. (see para [33])
Confirms the possible statutory route for vesting or delivery of disclaimed property to a person entitled to it. The court noted that no application had been made and left the potential remedy as an arguable issue for trial. (see para [33])
[2006] EWHC 3189 (Ch) · 15 December 2006Interprets
Applies the vesting-order scheme to require the applicant to establish both a relevant interest in the disclaimed property and entitlement to it. The application failed because the insurer’s subrogation rights were not proprietary. (see paras [85]-[90]; [109])
Interprets the requirement that an applicant claim an interest in the disclaimed property. The court held that this required an interest in the property itself, not merely a financial or subrogated interest. (see paras [85]-[90]; [109])
Applies the requirement that the court may vest disclaimed property in a person entitled to it or a trustee for that person. St Paul was not entitled to the claim because subrogation did not confer a proprietary interest. (see paras [85]-[90]; [109])
Confirms that a vesting order need not be completed by conveyance, transfer or assignment, but the provision could not assist an applicant lacking the requisite proprietary interest and entitlement. (see para [85])
1 more judgment, and what each says about section 181, are in the
case-law panel in the full Act.