Archive for the 'insolvency' Category

Regina v Taylor (George Charles) – WLR Daily

Regina v Taylor (George Charles) [2011] EWCA Crim 728;  [2011] WLR (D)  108

“Records kept on computer that affected or related to a company’s property or affairs were within the composite expression ‘book or paper affecting or relating to the company’s property or affairs’ within section 206(1)(c) of the Insolvency Act 1986.”

WLR Daily, 25th March 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL plc and other – WLR Daily

BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL plc and others [2011] EWCA Civ 227; [2011] WLR (D) 73

“A company was ‘deemed to be unable to pay its debts’ within section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 when the amount of its liabilities, taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities, exceeded the value of its assets to such an extent that the company had reached the point of no return, and if it continued to use its cash or other assets for current purposes it would amount to a fraud on future or contingent creditors.”

WLR Daily, 8th March 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Andersson v Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping, Tillsynsmynidigheten – WLR Daily

Andersson v Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping, Tillsynsmynidigheten C-30/10; [2011] WLR (D) 44

“A provision of national law which excluded an employee from entitlement under the guarantee of payment of employees’ outstanding claims in the event of their employer’s insolvency, on the ground that the employee within the six months preceding the application for a declaration of insolvency had been the owner of an essential part of the undertaking or business concerned and had had a considerable influence on it activities, was compatible with Parliament and Council Directive 2008/94/EC relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer.”

WLR Daily, 14th February 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

In re Nortel GmbH and related companies; In re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) and related companies – WLR Daily

In re Nortel GmbH and related companies; In re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) and related companies [2010] EWHC 3010 (Ch); [2010] WLR (D) 324

“Liabilities arising from the financial support direction (‘FSD’) regime created by the Pensions Act 2004 upon companies in administration or liquidation were payable as a liquidation or administration expense.”

WLR Daily, 13th December 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed

Revenue and Customs Comrs v Maxwell and another – WLR Daily

Revenue and Customs Comrs v Maxwell and another [2010] EWCA Civ 1379; [2010] WLR (D) 219

“The amount of a creditor’s claim against a company in administration and the characterisation of the company’s debt to the creditor were to be assessed under r 2.38(4) and (5) of the Insolvency Rules 1986 at the date of the administration, not the date of the creditors’ meeting, but the chairman’s powers of quantification under rr 2.39(1) and (3) and 2.38(5) were to be exercised taking into account events which had occurred since the administration.”

WLR Daily, 8th December 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Holland and another; In re Paycheck Services 3 Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Holland and another In re Paycheck Services 3 Ltd and others [2010] UKSC 51; [2010] WLR (D) 298

“A director of a corporate director of a company was not a de facto director of that company, who was thereby liable for the misuse of its assets, if his acts were done entirely within the ambit of the discharge of his duties and responsibilities as a director of the corporate director.”

WLR Daily, 24th November 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Bolsover District Council and another v Ashfield Nominees Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Bolsover District Council and another v Ashfield Nominees Ltd and others [2010] EWCA Civ 1129; [2010] WLR (D) 263

“A local authority which had obtained a liability order in respect of unpaid council tax and which wished to enforce it by way of insolvency proceedings was not obliged to do so within six years of granting of the order, since the presentation of winding up petitions in respect of sums due under liability orders for unpaid council tax were not within the scope of s 9 of the Limitation Act 1980.”

WLR Daily, 22nd October 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Clark and another v Finnerty and another; In re St George’s Property Services (London) Ltd – WLR Daily

Clark and another v Finnerty and another; In re St George’s Property Services (London) Ltd [2010] EWHC 2538 (Ch); [2010] WLR (D) 255

“Considerations that the institution of proceedings for relief under s 244 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in respect of a transaction to which the company was a party was extortionate when the issue was only triable and the consequences of thereby rescuing the company less than reasonably practicable were relevant to the existence or otherwise of good reason to remove the administrators under para 88 of Sch B1 to the Act but were not themselves sufficient to preclude good or sufficient reason.”

WLR Daily, 14th October 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL plc and others – WLR Daily

BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL plc and others [2010] EWHC 2005 (Ch); [2010] WLR (D) 223

“The requirement in s 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 to ‘[take] into account [the company’s] contingent and prospective liabilities’ when determining whether the value of the company’s assets was less than the amount of its liabilities could not require such liabilities to be aggregated at their face value with debts presently due, nor require the conversion of prospective liabilities denominated in some currency other than sterling into sterling at the present spot rate.”

WLR Daily, 3rd August 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Mond and another v MBNA Europe Bank Ltd – WLR Daily

Mond and another v MBNA Europe Bank Ltd [2010] EWHC 1710 (Ch); [2010] WLR (D) 190

“Clause 13.2 of the IVA Protocol, as well as clause 13.1, should not be construed as permitting a creditor bound by the Protocol to vote against an individual voluntary arrangement (‘IVA’) proposal only if he has good reason to do so.”

WLR Daily, 16th July 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Brazzill and others v Willoughby and others – WLR Daily

Brazzill and others v Willoughby and others [2010] EWCA Civ 561; [2010] WLR (D) 140

“A segregated trust account was held on trust for all account holders of a bank in respect of whose deposits should have been made into the account in accordance with a notice served by the Financial Services Authority (‘FSA’) and was not limited to those account holders in respect of whose accounts payments were in fact made into the account. ‘Deposits’ had its regulatory meaning which meant it was limited to regulated depositors only.”

WLR Daily, 28th May 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

In re Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Ltd (in administration) – WLR Daily

In re Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Ltd (in administration) [2010] EWCA Civ 518; [2010] WLR (D) 119

“After the set-off of cross-claims as between a company in administration and one of its creditors, the balance payable by a creditor to the company under r 2.85(8) of the Insolvency Rules 1986 in respect of a future debt was not to be a sum discounted to present value under r 2.105 but was to be an equivalent undiscounted amount.”
WLR Daily, 11th May 2010
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

In re Frankice (Golders Green) Ltd and others – WLR daily

In re Frankice (Golders Green) Ltd and others; [2010] WLR (D) 118

“The words ‘legal process’ in para 43(6) of Sch B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 meant something with a defined beginning and an ascertainable outcome, involving the compulsive power of the law, which, in the interim, was governed by a recognisable procedure which was legal or quasi-legal in nature.”

WLR Daily, 10th May 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

In re Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) – WLR Daily

In re Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) [2010] EWCA Civ 137; [2010] WLR (D) 55

“The centre of main interest of a company, for the purposes of recognition of a foreign main proceeding in cross-border insolvency proceedings, was to be identified by reference to factors which were both objective and ascertainable by third parties, not by applying the head office functions test.”

WLR Daily, 1st March 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Byers and others v Yacht Bull Corpn and another – WLR Daily

Byers and others v Yacht Bull Corpn and another [2010] EWHC 133 (Ch); [2010] WLR (D) 18

“A claim to beneficial ownership of a yacht did not fall within the exception contained in art 1(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters so that the Regulation did not apply to ‘proceedings relating to the winding up of insolvent companies’.”

WLR Daily, 2nd February 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) v CRC Credit Fund Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) v CRC Credit Fund Ltd and others [2009] EWHC 3228 (Ch); [2009] WLR (D) 371

“The statutory trust created by Chap 7 of the Clients Assets Sourcebook (‘CASS 7’) issued by the Financial Services Authority (‘FSA’) took effect upon the receipt, rather than upon the segregation, of client money. Pending segregation of client money, a firm was obliged to take reasonable steps to ensure that, in relation to client money mixed in its house account with the firm’s own money, clients’ rights in relation to that client money were not put at risk, and the client money was not used for the firm’s own purposes. Client money outside the firm’s segregated accounts did not form part of the client money pool (‘CMP’).”

WLR Daily, 17th December 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Bill clears the way for third party claims against liability insurers – OUT-LAW.com

“A proposed new law will make it easier and cheaper for people to pursue their claims directly against insurers when the insured becomes insolvent.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 30th November 2009

Source: www.out-law.com

Simpler, cheaper compensation procedure proposed in new Bill – Ministry of Justice

“Making it easier and less expensive to claim compensation from insolvent defendants is the aim of a new Bill put before Parliament today.”

Full story

Ministry of Justice, 23rd November 2009

Source: www.justice.gov.uk

Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd and another v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd and another Butters and others (joint administrators of WW Realisation 8 Ltd and another) v BBC Worldwide Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd and another v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd and another
Butters and others (joint administrators of WW Realisation 8 Ltd and another) v BBC Worldwide Ltd and others [2009] EWCA Civ 1160; [2009] WLR (D) 322

“The anti-deprivation rule, which as a matter of public policy prevented parties from contracting out of the insolvency legislation by removing assets otherwise available for creditors, did not apply to complex contractual provisions by which investors were granted rights over assets derived from their own moneys, rights which were modified when an event of default happened, or to licence termination and share option provisions operative on insolvency which did not contravene the Insolvency Act 1986. The rule did not normally apply to a deprivation completed before the liquidation, bankruptcy or its equivalent occurred.”

WLR Daily, 10th November 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

4 Eng Ltd v Harper and others (No 2) – WLR Daily

4 Eng Ltd v Harper and others (No 2) [2009] EWHC 2633 (Ch); [2009] WLR (D) 307

“Where it was established that the transferor had entered into a transaction at an undervalue for the purpose of defrauding creditors, the nature of any order and the extent of the relief granted by the court under ss 423(2) and 425 of the Insolvency Act 1986 should take into account the mental state of the transferee of property under a relevant transaction, or of any other person against whom an order was sought, and the degree of their involvement in the fraudulent scheme of the debtor/transferor to put assets out of the reach of his creditors.”

WLR Daily, 26th October 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd and another; Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v Same – WLR Daily

Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd and another; Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v Same [2009] EWHC 1912 (Ch); [2009] WLR (D) 262

 “Although a contractual provision which had the effect of requiring a person who had become insolvent to be deprived of an asset conflicted with the principle that an insolvent’s assets would be available for distribution among his creditors and would generally be unenforceable, the principle did not invalidate contractual provisions which had the effect of prejudicing creditors of a company in the event of insolvency by the actual or effective removal of an asset from the insolvent estate.”

WLR Daily, 30th July 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Syska and another v Vivendi Universal SA and others – WLR daily

Syska and another v Vivendi Universal SA and others [2009] EWCA Civ 677; [2009] WLR (D) 236

“Where a party to an arbitration reference became insolvent in an EU member state while the arbitration proceedings were pending in another member state, the appropriate law applicable to determine the validity of the agreement to progress the arbitration was the law of the member state where the arbitration was pending.”

WLR Daily, 10th July 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Bloom and Others v Harms Offshore AHT “Taurus” and “Magnus” GmbH and Co KG – Times Law Reports

Bloom and Others v Harms Offshore AHT “Taurus” and “Magnus” GmbH and Co KG

Court of Appeal

“Where creditors of a company in administration had attached property owned by that company in a foreign jurisdiction, the courts had power, in some circumstances, to grant injunctive relief affecting procedures in that foreign jurisdiction.”

The Times, 10th July 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

In re Stanford International Bank Ltd and others – WLR Daily

“The ‘centre of main interests’ for the purposes of the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 must be identified by reference to factors which were both objective and ascertainable by third parties. What was ascertainable by a third party was what was in the public domain and what a typical third party would learn as a result of dealing with the company.”

WLR Daily, 6th July 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk  

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Holland and another – WLR daily

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Holland and another [2009] EWCA Civ 625; [2009] WLR (D) 228

“A human director of a corporate director could in certain circumstances be regarded as a de facto director of the subject company but he would not automatically be so regarded.”

WLR Daily, 3rd July 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Bloom and others v Harms Offshore AHT “Taurus” GmbH & Co KG and another – WLR Daily

Bloom and others v Harms Offshore AHT “Taurus” GmbH & Co KG and another [2009] EWCA Civ 632; [2009] WLR (D) 211

“Where creditors had, in a foreign jurisdiction, attached certain property owned by a company in administration, the comity owed by the courts of different jurisdictions to each other would normally make it inappropriate for the municipal courts to grant injunctive relief affecting procedures in a court of foreign jurisdiction. However, due regard to certain relevant factors, such as the conduct of the creditors against whom the injunction was sought and the circumstances of the attachment, might justify the grant of an injunction.”

WLR Daily, 29th June 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

In re Dairy Farmers of Britain Ltd – WLR Daily

In re Dairy Farmers of Britain Ltd [2009] EWHC 1389 (Ch); [2009] WLR (D) 201

“Parliament intended that Parts I and II of the Insolvency Act 1986 should not apply to an industrial and provident society (‘IPS’), and there was no reason for adopting a different approach to Part III of the Act, either generally or with specific reference to s 72A of the Act. Further, section 37 in Part III of the Act could have no specific application to receivers of an IPS.”

WLR Daily, 19th June 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Gresham International Ltd and others v Moonie and others – WLR Daily

Gresham International Ltd and others v Moonie and others [2009] EWHC 1093 (Ch); [2009] WLR (D) 168

“The court had power, under its supervisory role of compulsory winding up and bankruptcy, to make orders that would effectively grant retrospective sanction to a liquidator who had issued proceedings in her name without first obtaining the sanction of the liquidation committee or the Secretary of State, as required under section 167 of the Insolvency Act 1986, notwithstanding that the criteria in r 4.184 (ii) of the Insolvency Rules as to the retrospective ratification of a liquidator’s acts had not been met.”

WLR Daily, 21st May 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Bolsover District Council v Dennis Rye Ltd – Times Law Reports

Bolsover District Council v Dennis Rye Ltd

Court of Appeal

“A judge hearing a winding-up petition against a company, when faced with a cross-claim by the company against the petitioner, had to consider only whether the evidence before him was sufficient to satisfy him that the company’s cross-claim was not merely arguable but was genuine and serious, and not whether the company should have previously taken action on the cross-claim unless it had a good reason for not doing so.”

The Times, 19th May 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Bolsover District council v Dennis Rye Ltd – WLR Daily

Bolsover District council v Dennis Rye Ltd; [2009] EWCA Civ 372; [2009] WLR (D) 147

Where a company served with a winding-up petition contended that it had a cross-claim against the petitioner, the issue for the judge was whether the evidence before him was sufficient to satisfy him that the company’s cross claim was not merely arguable but was genuine and serious, and not whether the company should have previously asserted, litigated or issued proceedings for the cross-claim unless it had a good excuse for not doing so.”

WLR Daily, 7th May 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Fraud tempts more directors of insolvent companies – The Times

“The number of directors of insolvent companies disqualified for financial crime is soaring as the recession takes hold, according to government figures.”

Full story

The Times, 4th May 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v Neufeld and Another – Times Law Reports

Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v Neufeld and Another

Court of Appeal

“A person who was a majority shareholder and director of a company could also be an employee of that company under a contract of employment, even if he had total control of the company.”

The Times, 10th April 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

In re Charit-Email Technology Partnership LLP; Vermillion International Investments Ltd v Charit-Email Technology Partnership LLP – WLR Daily

In re Charit-Email Technology Partnership LLP; Vermillion International Investments Ltd v Charit-Email Technology Partnership LLP; [2009] WLR (D) 57

“Although the interests and liabilities of a member of a limited liability partnership were different from those of a contributory to a limited company and those differences might lead to some changes in practice so far as petitions to wind them up were concerned, a person seeking to exercise a right to appear and be heard in court proceedings, whether as creditor or contributory, should at least claim to be a member of the class on whom that right was conferred.”

WLR Daily, 17th February 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Warner v Verfides (a Firm) – Times Law Reports

Warner v Verfides (a Firm)

Chancery Division

“Documents created by one party and sent to another did not necessarily cease to be correspondence, to which the privacy provisions of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights could apply, when they were received by the latter.”

The Times, 6th November 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Warner v Verfides (Hafner and another intervening) – WLR Daily

Warner v Verfides (Hafner and another intervening) [2008] EWHC 2609 (Ch); [2008] WLR (D) 338

“There was no reason why documents created by one party and sent to another should cease to be “correspondence” on their receipt by the latter. In the case of business correspondence, it could still engage the right to respect for private life under art 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.”

WLR Daily, 31st October 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

In re Courts plc – WLR Daily

In re Courts plc [2008] EWHC 2339 (Ch); [2008] WLR (D) 311

“S 176A(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986, which provided that a prescribed part of a company’s net property should be available for the satisfaction of unsecured debts, applied either in its entirety or not at all. There was no jurisdiction under s 176A(5) to order a partial disapplication of s 176A(2) regarding unsecured creditors with claims of a certain value.”

WLR Daily, 10th October 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Day v Haine and Another – Times Law Reports

Day v Haine and Another

Court of Appeal

“Protective awards made by an employment tribunal following the failure of a company to comply with its statutory obligation to consult concerning collective redundancies before going into liquidation were contingent debts of the company and therefore provable debts in the liquidation.”

The Times, 22nd July 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Calm before the storm of insolvency – The Times

“Vulnerable businesses are still in denial as the corporate recovery lawyers wait to mop up when the credit dam bursts.”

Full story

The Times, 10th July 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Day v Haine and another – WLR Daily

Day v Haine and another [2008] EWCA Civ 626; [2008] WLR (D) 188

“Where a company had failed to comply with its statutory obligation to consult its workforce before going into liquidation and subsequently protective awards were made by an employment tribunal, the obligation had arisen before the liquidation and the protective awards were therefore contingent debts of the company within rr 12.3 and 13.12 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 and provable in the liquidation. Moreover, the failure to consult concerning collective redundancies also infringed European law which the United Kingdom was under a duty to implement and to ensure that the penalty for infringement would be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.”

WLR Daily, 12th June 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

In re Federal-Mogul Aftermarket UK Ltd and others – WLR Daily

In re Federal-Mogul Aftermarket UK Ltd and others [2008] EWHC 1099 (Ch); [2008] WLR (D) 166

There was nothing in the rationale underlying the general application of the hindsight principle to contingent debts which should restrict its application to whether there had been an initial triggering event.”

WLR Daily, 23rd May 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.


Law change call for bust builders – BBC News

“Laws need to be tightened to ensure homeowners are not out of pocket when builders go bankrupt, the housing minister for Wales has said.”

Full story

BBC News, 19th May 2008

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

McGrath and Others v Riddell and Another – Times Law Reports

McGrath and Others v Riddell and Another

House of Lords

“The fact that in a country of principal winding-up of a company in liquidation there would be a class of preferential creditors who would not have priority under English insolvency law was insufficient reason for an English court to refuse to exercise its discretion, under section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986, to order remission of assets located in England to the country of principal winding-up.”

The Times, 11th April 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

McGrath and others v Riddell and another [2008] UKHL 21 – WLR Daily

McGrath and others v Riddell and another [2008] UKHL 21; [2008] WLR (D) 101

If the country of the principal winding up of an insolvent company was a designated ‘relevant country’ for the purposes of s 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the insolvency laws of that country would involve a pari passu distribution of assets to ordinary unsecured creditors, then an English court should accede to a request to remit assets located in England to the principal liquidators for distribution according to the foreign law even if, under that law, there would be a class of preferential creditors who would not have had priority under English insolvency law.”

WLR Daily, 10th April 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina (Griffin) v Richmond Magistrates Court – Times Law Reports

Regina (Griffin) v Richmond Magistrates Court

Queen’s Bench Divisional Court

“A defendant charged with failing to deliver up books and papers in the course of the winding-up of a company and who raised the statutory defence of no intent to defraud bore a legal burden rather than an evidential one; that burden was not incompatible with the right to a fair trial.”

The Times, 31st March 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Gemma Ltd (in liquidation) v Davies and another; In re Gemma Ltd (in liquidation) – WLR Daily

Gemma Ltd (in liquidation) v Davies and another; In re Gemma Ltd (in liquidation); [2008] EWHC 546 (Ch); [2008] WLR (D) 89

“In order to establish that a person was a de facto director of a company it was necessary, inter alia, to plead and prove that he undertook functions in relation to the company which could properly be discharged only by a director.”

WLR Daily, 18th March 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

In re Airbase (UK) Ltd; In re Airbase International Services Ltd – WLR Daily

In re Airbase (UK) Ltd; In re Airbase International Services Ltd [2008] EWHC 124 (Ch); [2008] WLR (D) 30

“The provisions of s 176A of the Insolvency Act 1986, which dealt with floating charges relating to property of a company that was, inter alia, in administration, excluded from participation in any distribution from the ‘prescribed part’ of a company’s net property, as defined in s 176A(6) of the Act, secured creditors who had unsecured debts due to a shortfall in the value of their security.”

WLR Daily, 6th February 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

R (Griffin) v Richmond Magistrates’ Court – WLR Daily

R (Griffin) v Richmond Magistrates’ Court [2008] EWHC 84 (Admin); [2008] WLR (D) 13

“The statutory defence under s208(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986, available to a defendant to a charge under s208(1)(c) of the Act, imposed a legal burden of proof which was not incompatible with art 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.”

WLR Daily, 28th January 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Administration and Enforcement Restriction Orders – Ministry of Justice

“This paper sets out for consultation the areas where secondary legislation will be used to establish the parameters required for the effective operation of both the revised Administration Order scheme and the Enforcement Restriction Order scheme.

Administration and Enforcement Restriction Orders consultation paper (PDF)

Annex A: new parts 6 and 6A of the County Courts Act 1984 (PDF)

Annex B: equality impact assessment (PDF)

Questionnaire (Word)

Ministry of Justice, 16th January 2008

Source: www.justice.gov.uk

In re Metronet Rail BCV Ltd (in public private partnership administration) and In re Metronet Rail SSL Ltd (in public private partnership administration) – WLR Daily

In re Metronet Rail BCV Ltd (in public private partnership administration) and In re Metronet Rail SSL Ltd (in public private partnership administration) [2007] EWHC 2697 (Ch)

The only companies that could fall within the term “other appointee”, as contained in Sch 15 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999, were public private partnership companies in whose favour there was under a scheme the transfer of property, rights and liabilities from an existing appointee.”

WLR Daily, 26th November 2007

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note: once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Hawkes v Cuddy and Others – Times Law Reports

Judge’s order inappropriate

Hawkes v Cuddy and Others

Court of Appeal

“It was inappropriate to make a declaratory judgment on an interlocutory application based on an allegation of contravention of the Companies Act 1985 when that would serve no useful purpose.”

The Times, 13th November 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Day v Haine and another – WLR Daily

Day v Haine and another

Protective awards made pursuant to s 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were not debts provable in the liquidation of a company in circumstances where they were made after the date of liquidation.”

WLR Daily, 22nd October 2007

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note: once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

In re Leeds United Association Football Club Ltd – Times Law Reports

No priority for liability to dismissal damages

In re Leeds United Association Football Club Ltd

“Where administrators adopted the contracts of employment of a company and the company subsequently become liable to pay damages for the wrongful termination of those contracts, the damages were not payable in priority to other expenses since that liability was not within the words ‘wages or salary’.”

The Times, 4th September 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Hawkes v. Cuddy and Others – Times Law Reports

Declaration of criminality made in civil proceedings

Hawkes v. Cuddy and Others

Chancery Division 

“The court had power, in appropriate circumstances, to grant a declaration of criminality in civil proceedings brought by a private individual litigant.”

The Times, 14th August 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Hawkes v. Cuddy and others – WLR Daily

Hawkes v. Cuddy and others [2007] EWHC 1935 (Ch)

“The court had jurisdiction to grant a declaration on a petition brought under s 459 of the Companies Act 1985 where the unfair prejudice relied on was caused by the alleged contravention of s 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986 by a director of a company in liquidation who had become the director of another company that was known by a prohibited name.”

WLR Daily, 31st July 2007

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

In re Eurocruit Europe Ltd. (in liquidation) – Times Law Reports

Times ran out for liquidator 

In re Eurocruit Europe Ltd. (in liquidation) 

Chancery Division

“The limitation period of a claim brought by a liquidator under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 was the same as that applicable to the underlying claim.”

The Times, 16th July 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.


July 2020
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Categories