Friday, 24 July 2009

Friday Fun - Which IP has been named as a party to an action the most? - 2nd Competition

As a further addition to the Shortest Judgment Competition I thought I would also run a second competition to find the Insolvency Practitioner (IP) who has been cited as a party to a case the most frequently, i.e. Canty v Boyden [2006] EWCA Civ 194; [2006] B.P.I.R. 624 or Mountney v Treharne [2002] EWCA Civ 1174, [2003] Ch. 135. I currently have PWC's Mr Pat Boyden (William Roache (“Ken Barlow”) and Chris Eubank's trustee)  at seven reported cases and KPMG's recently retired Mr Steve Treharne at five reported cases. The cases have to be reported and must have been heard in a UK court to be entered into the competition. The closing date for the competition is the 20th September 2009. IPs can enter! The prize for this competition is a free copy of Jordans Personal Insolvency: A Users Guide, 2009. 

This competition is of course different to the idea of how many times a specific IP brought cases to court, i.e. Sir Kenneth Cork with the Rolls Razor saga. A different exercise would be to examine the sorts of cases that an IP brought, i.e. Gerry Weiss as an IP would come up in the Rolls Razor saga, but not necessarily as a party to the action. 

IP Litigation League Table (this will be updated as the entries flow in).
  • Boyden: 7.
  • Treharne: 5.
  • Moriarty: 1.
  • Hughes: 1.
Picture Credit: https://ecf.flnb.uscourts.gov/graphics/seal.gif

1 comment:

Che Guava said...

Fair enough as a bit of fun. Might be more interesting to see which IPs are unsuccessful most often in court, either as applicant or respondent.

To start it off, you could look at:

CLYDESDALE FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD & ORS v SMAILES (2009)
APEX FROZEN FOODS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v (1) ABDUL ALI (2) FOODS (LONDON) LTD (3) ROBERT DEREK SMAILES (2007)
IN THE MATTER OF TIME FACILITIES MAINTENANCE LTD (In Liquidation) sub nom ROBERT SMAILES (Joint Liquidator of TIME FACILITIES MAINTENANCE LTD) (Applicant) v POTENTIAL FINANCE LTD (Respondent) (2004)

Unless I've missed some successes, looks like 0 for 3.

There was an error in this gadget