‘Companies in liquidation can theoretically refer claims to an adjudicator under construction law but it would be a futile exercise as the decision could not be enforced in most cases, the Court of Appeal in England has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 4th February 2019
Source: www.out-law.com
‘It was only published at the end of last week, so I’m not sure if you’ve had chance to look at Coulson LJ’s judgment in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd, Cannon Corporate Ltd v Primus Build Ltd. If not, then you should. It contains some important stuff about liquidation and CVAs, and when it is appropriate (and possible) to adjudicate if the referring party is subject to one of those processes.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 30th January 2019
‘The High Court in England has confirmed that the industry standard wording used in the notice of appointment does not invalidate the appointment of the administrators. The same practice had previously been called into question in a case involving NJM Clothing.’
OUT-LAW.com, 12th November 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The Court of Appeal has determined the extent of creditors’ entitlements to statutory interest on their debts and the correct approach for calculating their entitlement. It has ruled on the entitlement of representative creditors of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE) to the surplus funds and on the calculation of the statutory interest due to them.’
OUT-LAW.com, 10th November 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘On 13 October, the High Court handed down the judgment Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council & Ors v Robin Makin & Ors [2017] EWHC Case No: HC-2017-002064 (Ch) concerning the arrangements for the disposal of the body of Ian Stewart-Brady, formerly Ian Brady (the “deceased”), one of the infamous Moors murderers. We posted some initial comments based upon the Court’s judgment and the Summary which it produced “to assist in understanding the Court’s decision”.’
Law & Religion UK, 8th November 2017
Source: www.lawandreligionuk.com
In re Nortel Networks UK Ltd and related companies (No 2) [2017] EWHC 1429 (Ch)
‘The applicants, the administrators of companies in the same group, were aware of a number of potential claims, which might if established, qualify as administration expenses (“expense claims”), and thereby rank for payment in priority to the claims of unsecured creditors. Neither the Insolvency Act 1986, nor the Insolvency Rules 1986, nor the Insolvency Rules 2016 provided any express mechanism under which an administrator could require expense claims to be asserted by a specific date, or enable him to refuse to deal with claims asserted after that date in the context of a distribution to unsecured creditors. In the absence of any applicable statutory scheme, the administrators applied to the High Court for directions under paragraph 63 of Schedule B1 to the 1986 Act to implement a scheme informing potential claimants that any expense claims which had not yet been made had to be notified to the administrators on a prescribed form on or before a specified date.’
WLR Daily, 16th June 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re Nortel Networks UK Ltd and related companies [2016] EWHC 2769 (Ch)
‘The administrators of nineteen Europe, Middle East and Africa companies in the N group and the conflict administrator of one of those companies applied for directions enabling a global settlement to be made of the vast majority of disputes that had arisen in relation to the affairs of the group and the distribution of the proceeds of sale of its assets.’
WLR Daily, 31st November 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A woman who obtained a grant of letters of administration and then used a firm of licensed conveyancers to defend herself against a claim from other potential beneficiaries, has been told by the High Court that she has to pay back to the estate nearly £87,000 given to the firm that has been lost.’
Legal Futures, 26th August 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The US law firm investigating the diesel emissions scandal at Volkswagen is to examine the conduct of BHS directors in the run-up to the retailer’s collapse.’
The Guardian, 11th August 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Hosking and another v Slaughter and May [2016] EWCA Civ 474
‘During a company’s administration the administrators employed a firm of solicitors and agreed their fees. The company was wound up and the liquidators were subsequently appointed. Shortly thereafter the administrators approved the solicitors’ final invoice which post-dated the liquidators’ appointment. The liquidators applied to the court for an order for a detailed assessment of the costs agreed between the administrators and the solicitors, pursuant to rule 7.34 of the Insolvency Rules 1986. The registrar concluded that the administrators could agree and pay the fees of the solicitors and there was neither power under rule 7.34 nor inherent jurisdiction for the court to order a detailed assessment of costs. The judge dismissed the liquidators’ appeal against the registrar’s order refusing a detailed assessment of costs but allowed the appeal in respect of the final invoice, concluding that rule 7.34 did not apply to former administrators so the final invoice had not been properly approved and would have to be approved by the liquidators. The liquidators appealed against the judge’s decision not to order a detailed assessment and the solicitors appealed against the order that the final invoice had not been properly approved.’
WLR Daily, 24th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has refused a request by the liquidators of a company for a detailed assessment of costs agreed by the firm’s administrators.’
Litigation Futures, 25th May 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
In re Hartmann Capital Ltd (in special administration); [2015] EWHC 1514 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 241
‘As a matter of construction of article 4 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No 5 and Saving Provisions) Order 2013, which spoke in specific terms of an administrator “appointed pursuant to the provisions of Part II of the [Insolvency] 1986 Act” and a company which had “entered into administration under Part II of the 1986 Act”, administrators appointed pursuant to the Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/245) were denied the funding possibilities available to other administrators.’
WLR Daily, 13th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Under English law, information does not pass as property to a personal representative after the death of the deceased, (See Oxford v Moss [1979] 68 Cr App R 183; per Lord Upjohn in Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46, at 127; and per Floyd LJ in Your Response Limited v Datateam Business Media Ltd [2015] QB 41, at paragraph [42]) but rights associated with the information can vest in the representative. Where the information is digital, it exists as electrical signals rather than as an integral part of a physical form such as the words printed on the paper of a book. Digital information can exist both locally, on computing devices that were owned and used by the deceased, and in a cloud, on computing devices that are connected to the internet and to which the deceased had been connected for the provision of digital and other services. It is no longer sufficient to deliver a computing device to the relevant beneficiary without investigating what digital information is stored on that device and whether the deceased stored any digital information in a cloud. In some cases, information stored on a local device can provide the only clue to the existence of cloudstored information.’
Full story (PDF)
New Square Chambers, March 2015
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
In re Melodious Corpn; Pui-Kwan v Kam-Ho and others [2015] EWHC 621 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 162
‘Rule 7.55 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 had no application in circumstances where a meeting of the board of directors of the company purporting to place the company into administration out of court pursuant to paragraph 22(2) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 was inquorate and accordingly the resolution to appoint an administrator was invalid.’
WLR Daily, 10th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Charges arising under deemed contracts for supplies of gas and electricity to retail premises after the companies had entered into administration and after the premises had been vacated by the companies were provable debts within rule 13(12(1)(b) of the Insolvency Rules 1986.’
WLR Daily, 31st July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Administrators are often faced with a large number of retention of title (“ROT”) claims from suppliers who demand a quick adjudication of their claim, frequently on the back of incomplete evidence, and in the days immediately following an appointment when administrators’ resources are stretched. The recent decision Blue Monkey Gaming Ltd v Hudson & others [2014] EWHC (Ch)provides some useful guidance for both administrators and ROT claimants.’
Full story (PDF)
11 Stone Buildings, June 2014
Source: www.11sb.com
‘Purchasing businesses and assets from an administrator can be tempting at an attractive price but there are lots of traps for the unwary. In this Insider, Tom Shepherd focuses on three key areas to consider when there is a sale of a business out of administration. First, he lists the types of sale that an administrator is likely to be involved in, including the much talked about pre-pack. Then he outlines the different types of due diligence a purchaser might want to think about when he is buying assets from an administrator. Last but not least, he considers the position of employees in that situation.’
Full story (PDF)
11 Stone Buildings, May 2014
Source: www.11sb.com
‘Many commercial landlords will be delighted with the Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision in Jervis v Pillar Denton Limited (Game Station) and Others [2014] EWCA Civ 180, overruling the decisions in Goldacre and Luminar. The Court of Appeal held that, applying the Lundy Granite principle, the question of whether quarterly rent due under a lease was an administration expense or a provable debt depended not on whether the rent fell due during the period of the administration, but whether the property had been used for the benefit of the administration. Sarah Clarke gives the background to these cases, sets out the Game appeal decision and highlights its consequences as well as the real concerns for officeholders.’
11 Stone Buildings, February 2014
Source: www.11sb.com
‘In the context of insolvency, where rent was payable in advance the office holder should make payments at the rate of the rent for the duration of any period during which he retained possession of the demised property for the benefit of the winding up or administration. The rent would be treated as accruing from day to day. Those payments were payable as expenses of the winding up or administration. The duration of the period was a question of fact and was not determined merely by reference to which rent days occurred before, during or after that period.’
WLR Daily, 24th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024