The Brakes were made bankrupt in 2015. Their trustee in bankruptcy entered into a number of transactions to dispose of the bankrupt estate. The Brakes sought to challenge the propriety of these transactions under section 303(1) Insolvency Act 1986, which provides for the trustee’s exercise of discretion to be challenged on the application of “dissatisfied” persons. At the Court of Appeal, it was found that the Brakes had sufficient standing to make an application under section 303(1) as bankrupts in their own capacity on the basis that they had a direct interest in the relief sought. The Chedington Court Estate Ltd now appeals to the Supreme Court on the ground that bankrupts cannot have standing to interfere in the conduct of their bankruptcies where the relief sought would have no impact on their position within the bankruptcy and/or where other relief is available to them in the general law.

The issue arises in the context of applications to bring collective proceedings for breaches of competition law. By a decision dated 19 July 2016, the European Commission found that five major European truck manufacturing groups, including DAF, infringed competition law.
On the basis of the Commission decision, the Road Haulage Association Limited ("RHA") and UK Trucks Claim Limited ("UKTC") each sought an order from the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the "Tribunal") authorising them to bring separate collective claims for damages on behalf persons who acquired trucks from DAF and other manufactures. RHA and UKTC have LFAs in place, under which the funder’s maximum remuneration is calculated by reference to a share of the damages ultimately recovered in the litigation. DAF contends that these agreements constitute DBAs with the consequence that they are unlawful and unenforceable because they do not comply with the statutory requirements for DBAs.
DAF’s argument that the agreements were DBAs was rejected by the Tribunal and the Divisional Court on judicial review (the Court of Appeal having held it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Tribunal in such a case). DAF now appeals directly to the Supreme Court.