Wednesbury Unreasonableness (Administrative Law)

12401 Words50 Pages
Commercial Law Two Recent Decisions On Corporate Receivership by A. V. Gill, LLB (Q.U.B.), Lecturer in Law, The law reports both in Ireland and the United Kingdom continue to bear eloquent testimony to the manifold legal problems engendered by the enduring recession which affects both jurisdictions. Foremost in this regard is the increasing volume of litigation caused by the greater frequency with which banks have had recourse to their debenture powers to appoint receivers to ailing businesses to manage the company affairs and realize its assets. This increased volume of litigation has uncovered difficult legal issues and the courts have had greater opportunities to analyse, and to develop to a more sophisticated degree than before, the legal principles which govern the operations of a corporate receiver. Two recent decisions of the English High Court viz., American Express International Banking Corp. v Hurley [[1985] 3 All ER 564 . ] and Gomba Holdings UK Ltd v Homan & Another [ The Times. 1 April 1986 . ] exemplify this process and deserve to be noted in Ireland. This article will focus on two aspects of corporate receivership raised by these cases: 1. (1) The obligations of a debenture holder for the acts of a receiver. 2. (2) The duty of a receivership to supply information to a company during the course of the receivership. (1) The Obligations of the Debenture Holder for the Acts of the Receiver. The basic ground rules which govern receivership can be succinctly stated. Although a receiver may be appointed by a court following an application from the debenture holder, the standard form nature of the modern debenture ensures a clause entitling the debenture holder to appoint a receiver in certain specified circumstances. The primary function of the receiver so appointed is to realize the assets of the company which are comprised in the
Open Document