This websites use cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For more details about cookies and how to manage them, see our cookie policy.

Cases Catherine Addy

In the Matter of The Financial Conduct Authority v Carillion Plc (in liquidation) [2020] EWHC 2146 (Ch)

Judgment Date: 07 Aug 2020

The Financial Conduct Authority's process of deciding whether to impose sanctions on a company (including the decision) was an "action or proceeding" within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1986 Pt IV s.130(2). Accordingly, the court's leave was required before a warning notice could be given by the FCA.

View case

In the Matter of The Competition and Markets Authority v Michael Christopher Martin [2020] EWHC 1751 (Ch)

Judgment Date: 03 Jul 2020

Pursuant to the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 s.9A(1), once a court had found that a director's conduct was such as to make him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company, it had to make a disqualification order. Even though disqualification engaged ECHR art.8, the word "must" in s.9A(1) meant that the making of an order was mandatory.

View case

Ingenious Games v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2019)

Judgment Date: 26 Jul 2019

The First-tier Tribunal had erred in concluding that limited liability partnerships involved in the production of films and computer games had carried on a trade for the purpose of being able to claim trading losses in their partnership returns, and had wrongly applied a partly objective test when considering whether the trade had been carried on with a view to a profit.

View case

Green & Newman (as Joint Administrators of each of the Respondent companies) v SCL Group Ltd (2019)

Judgment Date: 17 Apr 2019

The administrators of companies in the Cambridge Analytica group had not breached their duties in connection with the hearing for an administration order, nor had they misconducted themselves during the administration. They would be appointed as the companies' liquidators.

View case

Joint Administrators Of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2019)

Judgment Date: 13 Mar 2019

Statutory interest payable on proven debts from a surplus in an administration under the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 r.14.23(7)amounted to "yearly interest" under the Income Tax Act 2007 s.874. The interest was therefore subject to deductions of income tax.

View case

Revenue & Customs (2016) v Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) Sub Nom (1) Anthony Victor Lomas & Ors

Judgment Date: 19 Dec 2017

Statutory interest payable on proven debts in an administration under the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 r.14.23(7) amounted to "yearly interest" under the Income Tax Act 2007 s.874. The interest was therefore subject to deductions of basic rate income tax.

View case

Commissioners for HMRC v Joint Administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”) (in administration) (2017)

Judgment Date: 19 Dec 2017

Statutory interest payable by the administrators of LBIE to its creditors from the surplus in the administration under Rule 2.88(7) of the Insolvency Rules 1986 and Rule 14.23(7) of the Insolvency Rules 2016 is “yearly interest” for the purposes of section 874(1) of the Income Tax Act 2007 and its consequential tax deduction procedure. In so holding, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of Hildyard J below

View case

UBS AG v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig GMBH (2017)

Judgment Date: 16 Oct 2017

A judge had been right to grant rescission of derivative contracts between a bank and its customer on the grounds of bribery and conflict of interests. He had erred in holding the bank responsible for the bribe, because the third party making it had not, on the facts, been acting as the bank's agent at the time. However, the bank was responsible for the bribe in equity, because it had dishonestly assisted the third party in achieving its corrupt aims. The court examined the nature of fiduciary relationships, the concept of attribution, and the availability of equitable remedies.

View case

Ingenious Games & Inside Track Productions & Ingenious Film Partners v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2017)

Judgment Date: 17 May 2017

Sums paid by a business to acquire the rights to receive future income from the distribution of films constituted expenditure of a capital nature under the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 s.33 and were not deductible in computing taxable profits. Section 33 did not need to be interpreted differently in the light of changes in accounting practice.

View case

In The Matter of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) Sub Nom (1) Anthony Victor Lomas & Ors v Revenue & Customs (2016)

Judgment Date: 11 Oct 2016

The statutory interest to be paid under the Insolvency Rules 1986 r.2.88(7) out of a surplus in an administration was not "yearly interest" within the meaning of the Income Tax Act 2007 s.874. The administrators therefore had no obligation to account for income tax on the interest payments.

View case

Ingenious Games & Inside Track Productions & Ingenious Film Partners v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2016)

Judgment Date: 02 Aug 2016

Two film partnerships were carrying on a "trade, profession or business with a view to profit" pursuant to the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 s.863(1) and the Corporation Tax Act 2009 s.1273(1) and so were entitled to claim for trading losses. However, the trading losses asserted had not been computed correctly as a matter of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. A related partnership which was involved in the production of computer games was found not to be carrying on a trade, so its appeal against HMRC's refusal of its claim for trading losses was dismissed.

View case

Anton David Taylor v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills (2016)

Judgment Date: 28 Jul 2016

A director who had given a disqualification undertaking and asked the court to exercise its discretion under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 s.8A to reduce the agreed period, or to order that the undertaking should cease to have effect, had to demonstrate special circumstances. Failure to take legal advice when invited to do so and failure to appreciate the consequential effects of the undertaking were not special circumstances.

View case

UBS AG (London Branch) & Ors v Landesbank Baden-Wurttemberg & Ors (2014)

Judgment Date: 04 Nov 2014

A German municipal water company had made out two grounds on which it was entitled to rescind a single tranche collateralised debt obligation (STCDO) which it had entered into with a bank: there was an agency relationship between the company's financial advisers and the bank, and the advisers had paid a bribe to the company's managing director which was within the scope of the agency so as to make the bank liable for it in law; also the bank knew that the advisers were subject to a conflict of interest.

View case

Pillar Denton Ltd v GAME Retail Ltd (2014)

Judgment Date: 24 Feb 2014

Where property leased by a company in administration was retained by the administrator for the benefit of the administration, under the salvage principle the administrator had to pay the rent during the period for which he retained the property. The rent was treated as accruing from day to day and was payable as an expense of the administration.

View case

Mynt Ltd v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2013)

Judgment Date: 30 Oct 2013

Where an appellant had begun a “missing trader fraud” appeal in the VAT and Duties Tribunal and had agreed that costs should be in the cause following the transfer of that appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, it could be concluded that it had hoped to recover its costs if successful and was therefore not entitled to protection from having to pay the commissioners’ costs when its appeal was dismissed.

View case

John Green & Paul Rowley v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc (2013)

Judgment Date: 09 Oct 2013

The existence of an action for breach of statutory duty consequent on the contravention by a bank of the Conduct of Business Rules did not give rise to a co-extensive common law duty of care.

View case

In the Matter of UKLI Ltd; Secretary of State v Baljinder Chohan (2013)

Judgment Date: 26 Mar 2013

Where an individual was properly characterised as a de facto and shadow director of a company which he had sanctioned and encouraged to operate an unlawful collective investment scheme, and where he had procured the company to make improper loans and dividends, it was appropriate to disqualify him from acting as a director under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 s.6 for a 12-year period.

View case

In the Matter of Instant Access Properties Ltd v Maria Gifford (2011)

Judgment Date: 21 Nov 2011

It was appropriate to grant the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills permission to apply for disqualification orders against four company directors, pursuant to the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 s.7(2), after the two-year period from the company's insolvency had expired. The case alleged against the directors that they had created a sham arrangement to avoid paying tax was reasonably strong, the delay in bringing proceedings was reasonably well explained and there was no specific prejudice to the directors such that the grant of permission was not appropriate.

View case

In The Matter Of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) (October 2009)

Judgment Date: 21 Oct 2009

The proper construction of a prime brokerage agreement was that the counterparty to the agreement retained a beneficial interest in the securities held by the broker as custodian and in cash derived from those securities. As a result, the counterparty was a secured creditor for both cash and securities in the broker's administration.

View case

Revenue & Customs Commissioners v Alan Blackburn Sports Ltd (2008)

Judgment Date: 18 Dec 2008

In the circumstances an issue of shares to a director by a company did not qualify for Enterprise Investment Scheme relief because the issue of shares was caught by the value received rules in the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 Sch.5B para.13 as a result of the director not subscribing wholly in cash for the shares. However, two subsequent issues of shares qualified for Enterprise Investment Scheme relief.

View case

1 2

Results 1 - 20 of 28