Re Apcoa Parking (UK) Ltd & others [2014] EWHC 997 (Ch), [2014] All ER (D) 49 (Apr)
The test for the composition of classes was settled. Persons whose rights were so dissimilar that they could not sensibly consult together with a view to their common interest had to be given separate meetings. Persons whose rights were sufficiently similar that they could consult together with a view to their common interest should be summoned to a single meeting.
The test was based on similarity or dissimilarity of legal rights against the company, not on similarity or dissimilarity of interests not derived from such legal rights. The fact that individuals might hold divergent views based on their private interests not derived from their legal rights against the company was not a ground for calling separate meetings.
The application of that test required a consideration of: (i) the rights of creditors in the absence of the scheme; and (ii) any new rights to which the creditors become entitled under the scheme. If there was a material difference between
