“[A] person is entitled to vote only if – (a) he has given to the administrator, not later than 12.00 hours on the business day before the day fixed for the meeting, details in writing of the debt which – (i) he claims to be due to him from the company… [and] (b) the claim has been duly admitted under the following provisions of this Rule…”
“Votes are calculated according to the amount of a creditor’s claim as at the date on which the company entered administration, less any payments that have been made to him after that date in respect of his claim and any adjustment by way of set-off in accordance with Rule 2.85 as if that Rule were applied on the date that the votes are counted.”
“A creditor shall not vote in respect of a debt for an unliquidated amount or any debt whose value is not ascertained, except where the chairman agrees to put upon the debt an estimated minimum value for the purpose of entitlement to vote and admits the claim for that purpose.”
“The chairman’s decision under this Rule, or in respect of any matter arising under Rule 2.38, is subject to appeal to the court by any creditor.”
“[I]t has not been suggested that he acted hastily or otherwise than on the basis of advice received. He would, of course, have been wrong if he had rejected the claim of HMRC in toto. He would equally, in my judgment, have been wrong had he accepted the claim in toto, because he would have been going contrary to the advice which he had obtained – and for which, incidentally, the creditors are ultimately paying. I do not see how he could properly have acted otherwise than he did. Either Mr Klempka’s decision was, as in my judgment it was, right; or HMRC, as the appellant, has not discharged the burden of showing that the decision was wrong.”
“In my view, the task of the court, on an appeal under Rule 4.70(4) [the equivalent to Rule 2.39(4)]…, is simply to examine the evidence placed before it on the matter and come to a conclusion whether, on balance, the claim against the company is established and, if so, in what amount. I would only add that, in considering the matter, the court is not confined to the evidence that was before the chairman at the time that he made his decision but is entitled to consider whatever admissible evidence on the issue the parties to the appeal choose to place before the court.”
“But if during the currency of the policy an accident occurred which, if the indemnity had not been repudiated, would have entitled the holder to £x, the Court treat[s] that fact as evidence pro tanto of the value of the indemnity, and the holder could … prove… for £x less a discount for the period between the date of the winding –up order and the date of the accident. … This was the principle of Sir George Jessel’s decision in Macfarlane’s Claim 17 Ch D 337 . The claim could be made at any time during the continuance of the winding-up, but not so as to disturb prior dividends.”
“‘an unliquidated debt’ includes not only all cases of damages to be ascertained by a jury, but beyond that, extends to any debt where the creditor fairly admits that he cannot state the amount. In that case there must be some further enquiry before he can vote.”
“[T]he meeting is not the place to go into lengthy debates as to the exact status of a debt, nor is it the time to consider such matters as this court, sitting as the Companies Court, frequently has to consider as such whether a debt is bona fide disputed upon substantial grounds, an issue which leads to a great deal of litigation and frequently takes a day or so to decide. None of that could possibly be a suitable process to be embarked upon at a creditors' meeting.”