Bankruptcy petition against electrical contractor director dismissed

3 Mar 2025Court Report

High Court dismisses bankruptcy petition against electrical contractor director Gareth Wyn Jones due to unliquidated debt

High Court Dismisses Bankruptcy Petition Against Electrical Contractor Director

The High Court recently addressed a significant case involving a bankruptcy petition filed by City Electrical Factors Limited against Gareth Wyn Jones, a director of Selectrical (Bangor) Limited. The petition was based on Mr Jones' personal guarantees of the company's debts, amounting to £190,449.97.

The case was initially heard in the County Court at Caernarfon, where District Judge Jones-Evans found that the guarantees were 'see to it' and 'indemnity' obligations, which typically result in claims for damages rather than liquidated debts. Consequently, the petition was adjourned, pending further compliance with insolvency requirements.

Mr Jones appealed the decision, seeking the dismissal of the petition. The appeal was granted by Judge Keyser KC, who reviewed the case under the framework of the Insolvency Act 1986, specifically section 267, which requires a creditor's petition to be based on a liquidated sum.

During the appeal, City Electrical Factors Limited conceded the primary ground of the appeal, acknowledging that the liability under the guarantees did not constitute a liquidated debt. The High Court agreed with this concession, noting that the guarantees were indeed 'see to it' obligations, which are enforceable by way of action for unliquidated damages.

Judge Keyser KC highlighted the importance of adhering to established legal principles, referencing the Court of Appeal's decision in McGuinness v Norwich and Peterborough Building Society, which clarified the distinction between different types of guarantees and their implications for bankruptcy petitions.

The High Court's decision underscores the necessity for creditors to ensure that debts are liquidated before pursuing bankruptcy petitions. This ruling serves as a reminder of the strict requirements under the Insolvency Act 1986 and the need for precise legal interpretation.

The implications of this case are significant for practitioners dealing with insolvency and bankruptcy matters, particularly those involving personal guarantees and the classification of debts.