‘The recent decision of Mr Justice Edis in DavisonSebry v Companies House and the Registrar of Companies [2015] EWHC 115 (QB) has highlighted how, in the interconnected age of the internet, the careless click of a mouse button can have incredibly far-reaching consequences and abruptly destroy the business of a successful company. The unusual facts would suggest that further cases against the Registrar (against whom judgment was entered) would be unlikely, not least because the reporting procedures are bound to be tightened up.’
Full story (PDF)
New Square Chambers, February 2015
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘In an important judgment handed down recently by the Court of First Instance in Hong Kong, the companies judge has ruled on the ambit of the power to order a person to produce documents to a provisional liquidator pursuant to section 221(3) of the Companies (Winding-Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance.(1) For now and pending any appeal, the judgment confirms that the scope of documents “relating to the company” that have to be produced to a liquidator (pursuant to section 221(3) of the Ordinance) is narrower than the matters in respect of which a person can be examined on oath concerning the “affairs of the company” (sections 221(1) and (2)). In so doing, the judgment gives a more literal interpretation of the power to order production pursuant to section 221(3) without reference to section 221(1).’
RPC Commercial Disputes Blog,
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
‘Where a court was considering whether a commercial practice amounted to a misleading omission by the omission of material information for the purposes of regulation 6 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, the court had to consider, particularly where the information omitted concerned alternative products, whether the average consumer could be said to have needed to obtain that information from the trader rather than from elsewhere.’
WLR Daily, 10th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The undertaking in damages given on the appointment of a provisional liquidator did not automatically terminate on the making of a winding up order so as to deprive the court of jurisdiction to enforce the undertaking by ordering an inquiry as to damages.’
WLR Daily, 6th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Cases about whether someone owes a duty of care in tort can be surprisingly difficult to decide. Kate Beattie has just posted on the Michael case here, where no duty was held to arise, despite (it appears) the police control room being told by the doomed Ms Michael that her ex-boyfriend had just told her that he was just about to “fucking kill you”. He was as good as his word, within 20 minutes, and the family now sues the police. How much more direct can you be than that? And yet the family lost 5-2 in the Supreme Court.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 8th February 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A High Court judge has found Companies House liable for the demise of Taylor & Sons Ltd, after they mistakenly recorded that it had been wound up.’
Daily Telegraph, 27th January 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘While most jurisdictions provide liquidators with wide investigative powers to locate and realise assets locally, the exercise of such powers becomes more complicated when the assets are situated overseas. As more and more businesses expand globally and corporate structures become equally more complex, the liquidators’ task becomes more problematic in winding up such companies.’
RPC Commercial Disputes Blog,
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
‘Paedophile Ian Watkins will not receive a £150,000 pay-out after a Lostprophets’ management company was dissolved, the BBC understands.’
BBC News, 13th January 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 157; [2014] WLR (D) 527
‘The stay provisions in section 9(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 did not apply to a winding up petition where the ground of the petition was that the company was unable to pay its debts and what was in dispute was that issue generally or, more specifically, whether there was outstanding and due a particular debt mentioned in the petition.’
WLR Daily, 8th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A new market for trading the pension debts of insolvent companies will be created as a result of a recent High Court ruling. The ruling will also result in more efficient, earlier winding up of pension schemes when companies go out of business.’
OUT-LAW.com, 4th December 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
PricewaterhouseCoopers v Saad Investments Co Ltd: [2014] UKPC 35; [2014] WLR (D) 475
‘A court would not normally entertain submissions from strangers to a winding up to the effect that a winding up order should not have been made, but general rule should not be elevated into an immutable principle, applicable in every case irrespective of its facts.’
WLR Daily, 10th November 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Singularis Holdings Ltd v PricewaterhouseCoopers: [2014] UKPC 36; [2014] WLR (D) 476
‘There was a power at common law to assist a foreign court of insolvency jurisdiction by ordering the production of information in oral or documentary form which was necessary for the administration of a foreign winding up. However, that power was not exercisable where an equivalent order could not have been made by the court in which the foreign liquidation was proceeding.’
WLR Daily, 20th November 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The High Court had jurisdiction to appoint a provisional liquidator notwithstanding the fact that appeals by the company in respect of disputed VAT assessments were pending in the First-tier Tax Tribunal.’
WLR Daily, 16th October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘With very little fanfare indeed, a new Practice Direction for Insolvency Proceedings came into effect on 29 July 2014, replacing that of February 2012. The changes between the 2012 and 2014 Insolvency Practice Directions are minor, but have the potential to trip up practitioners. Thomas Robinson sets out the three main areas to note.’
Full story (PDF)
11 Stone Buildings, August 2014
Source: www.11sb.com
‘Corporate bodies (limited companies or LLPs) have a separate legal identity that ceases to exist upon dissolution. Dissolution can occur, broadly speaking, in two ways, one is at the end of the process of winding up (whether voluntary or compulsory) and the other is by the process of striking off the Register of Companies or limited liability partnerships. The latter occurs either as a result of the company’s or LLP’s failure to file accounts, returns etc. or by a process of voluntary striking off.’
Full story (PDF)
Thirty Nine Essex Street, 7th March 2014
Source: www.39essex.com
‘This article questions the decision in ARM Asset-Backed Securities S.A. [2013] EWHC 3351 CH which found that a company was insolvent despite a contractual limited recourse provision which provided that the company was not liable to pay its bondholders more than its available funds.’
11 Stone Buildings, February 2014
Source: www.11sb.com
Prime Sight Ltd v Lavarello [2013] UKPC 22; [2013] WLR (D) 514
‘When a deed contained a valid contract of sale the parties were entitled on ordinary contractual principles to rely on the terms of the deed by which the purchase price was treated between the parties as having been paid, even though no payment had in fact been made. In those circumstances the seller’s trustee in bankruptcy was estopped by the terms of the deed from asserting that the purchase price had not been paid.’
WLR Daily, 9th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In a judgment handed down today (Isis Investments Ltd v Kaupthing Bank h.f. & Elfar Adalsteinsson [2013] EWCA Civ 1493), the Court of Appeal has clarified the meaning and scope of “lawsuits pending” in Article 32 of the EC Directive on the Reorganisation and Winding Up of Credit Institutions (Directive 2001/24/EC). Charles Samek QC who acted for the successful respondent, Mr Adalsteinsson (acting as a representative party on behalf of high net-worth investors) explains the significance of the judgment.’
11 Stone Buildings, 27th November 2013
Source: www.11sb.com
“The knowledge of a fraud perpetrated by a director by means of a company was not to be attributed to that company when it sought to recover losses which the company itself had suffered as a result of the fraud, even where the director was the sole director and shareholder of the company. In those circumstances the director could not rely on the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio to defeat the claim.”
WLR Daily, 31st July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024