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 Insolvency & Restructuring

Official Receiver v Deuss

Judgment Date: 05 Jul 2021

Third-party costs orders: who is the “real party” on an application for public examination under s.133 Insolvency Act 1986

View case

WWRT Limited v Tyschenko & Tyschenko [2021] EWHC 939 (Ch)

Judgment Date: 21 Apr 2021

The High Court considered the interplay between the Brussels Recast Regulation (“BRR”) and the approach of modified universalism to international insolvency proceedings in the course of continuing a worldwide freezing injunction, dismissing a jurisdiction challenge and ordering further disclosure and cross-examination in support of the worldwide freezing injunction. Although this will be one of the last ever cases concerning the BRR, it is an important reminder of the effect Owusu v Jackson [2005] QB 801 when a finding of domicile is made and would be of particular significance should the United Kingdom accede to the Lugano Convention.

View case

Keeping Kids Company

Judgment Date: 12 Feb 2021

In a judgment handed down today following a 10 week trial, Falk J dismissed the Official Receiver’s claim for the disqualification of the former directors (“the Trustees”) of the well-known charity Kids Company, which went into liquidation in 2015.

View case

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

LB Holdings Intermediate 2 Ltd (In Administration), Re Lehman Brothers Holdings Plc (In Administration)

Judgment Date: 03 Jul 2020

The court determined the priority of competing claims under subordinated loan agreements and subordinated loan notes in the administration of two Lehman Brothers companies in which the claims of unsecured unsubordinated creditors had all been paid.

View case

In The Matter of Transworld Payment Solutions UK Ltd (In Liquidation) Sub Nom Official Reciever v (1) Johannes Christian Martinus Augustinus Marie Deuss (2) Timothy Ulrich (2020)

Judgment Date: 27 Jan 2020

The Insolvency and Companies Court provided guidance on the purpose of applications for public examination under s.133 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the extent of the Court’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, the role of the Court on an application for directions and the role that the creditor requesting the examination plays in a disputed application. The Court also determined that the Official Receiver did not have the power to increase the deposit provided by the requesting creditor under the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 r.7.101(2). Caley Wright appeared for the requesting creditor.

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

Gwinnutt v George (2019)

Judgment Date: 12 Apr 2019

Where a bankruptcy order had been made against a barrister, fees due to them pursuant to an honorarium rather than a contract automatically vested in the trustee in bankruptcy.

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

Kamal Siddiqi v Taparis Ltd (2019)

Judgment Date: 13 Feb 2019

A tribunal judge had made a serious procedural error in finding that a bankruptcy petition was unopposed because the notice of opposition had been filed late, and that accordingly he had jurisdiction to hear the petition. He should have adjourned the hearing and transferred it to a specialist court, in accordance with CPR PD 57AA and CPR PD (Insolvency Proceedings).

View case

BAT v Sequana (2019)

Judgment Date: 06 Feb 2019

A common law duty to have regard to creditors' interests could be triggered when a company's circumstances fell short of actual insolvency. Such a duty arose when the directors knew or should have known that the company was or was likely to become insolvent. In that context, "likely" meant probable.

View case

Deansgate 123 LLP v (1) Ian Garth Workman (2) Ian Grant Workman : Carol Ann Forrester (As Executrix Of The Estate Of Susan Margaret Workman) v (1) Ian Garth Workman (2) Ian Grant Workman (2019)

Judgment Date: 11 Jan 2019

Applications under the Insolvency Act 1986 s.423 to set aside a transfer of property were not struck out as an abuse of process where they had been brought subsequent to the determination of the issue of the validity of the transfer. The question of validity was separate from the issue of whether the transfer should be set aside. It was therefore not the case that the s.423 applications should have been brought as part of the earlier proceedings.

View case

Christopher Paul Reynard v Nigel Fox (2018)

Judgment Date: 08 Aug 2018

The court refused a bankrupt's application for permission to bring a claim against his trustee in bankruptcy pursuant to the Insolvency Act 1986 s.304, where there was no reasonably meritorious cause of action and where the proposed application raised issues which had already been decided against the bankrupt in an application under s.303.

View case

JSC BTA Bank v (1) Mukhtar Ablyazov (2) Madiyar Ablyazov (2018)

Judgment Date: 22 May 2018

In proceedings under the Insolvency Act 1986 s.423 for the recovery of a sum paid as a gift by a former banker to his son, the fact that the banker was aware at the time of the transaction that he was facing claims against his assets did not compel a finding that the transaction was entered into for the prohibited purpose of prejudicing creditors.

View case

(1) Richard Toone (2) Kevin Murphy v (1) Dean Robbins (2) Richard Robbins (2018)

Judgment Date: 20 Mar 2018

Two company directors were required to repay to joint liquidators payments which they had received from the company which they had failed to demonstrate had been lawfully paid by way of remuneration.

View case

Christopher Paul Reynard v Nigel Fox (2018)

Judgment Date: 08 Mar 2018

A bankrupt's claim for breach of contract and negligence against his trustee in bankruptcy was struck out under CPR r.3.4(2), on the grounds that the claim form disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and that it was an abuse of the court's process.

View case

Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding & Anor (2018)

Judgment Date: 28 Feb 2018

The court construed the Limitation Act 1980 s.21(1)(b), which provided that no limitation period was applicable to actions by a beneficiary under a trust to recover trust property in the possession of the trustee or previously received by him and converted to his use. The mere fact that misappropriated trust property had remained legally and beneficially owned by corporate vehicles throughout the misappropriation, rather than becoming vested in law or equity in the defaulting directors, did not mean that s.21(1)(b) was inapplicable.

View case

(1) Simon Franklin Plant (2) Daniel Plant (Administrators Of Relentless Software Ltd) v (1) Vision Games 1 Ltd (2) Ultimate Finance Ltd (3) Thincats Loan Syndicates Ltd (4) Relentless Vision 1 Ltd (20

Judgment Date: 25 Jan 2018

Vision 1 Ltd (2018) Summary The court interpreted agreements by which a video games development company had agreed to accept funding from a loan company, secured by various charges. In particular, it determined that the funder had no security or other proprietary interest in monies in the company's bank accounts, derived from tax credits.

View case

Pearson v Primeo Fund (2017)

Judgment Date: 06 Jul 2017

Where a Cayman Islands company had issued redeemable shares and had later been wound up, an investor which had redeemed its shares under the terms of the company's articles, but which had not received payment of the proceeds before the commencement of the winding-up, had redeemed the shares for the purposes of the Companies Law 2007 (Cayman Islands) s.37. The investor thus had priority over other shareholders.

View case

1 2

Results 1 - 20 of 27