Doleman v Shaw – Times Law Reports

Posted April 22nd, 2009 in assignment, leases, news, winding up by sally

Doleman v Shaw

Court of Appeal

“When a liquidator disclaimed a lease, that did not determine any liability under the lease of the original lessee or of the guarantor in relation to leases or assignments of the leases executed after the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 had come into force on January 1, 1996, although the liability of the insolvent assignee company had ceased after the disclaimer.”

The Times, 22nd April 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Doleman v Shaw – WLR Daily

Posted April 3rd, 2009 in assignment, law reports, leases, winding up by sally

Doleman v Shaw [2009] EWCA Civ 283; [2009] WLR (D) 115

On a true construction of s 178(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986, on the disclaimer of a lease by a liquidator, although the company ceased to be bound by the tenant covenants so far as its own obligations were concerned, it was treated as still bound so far as third party obligations were concerned.”

WLR Daily, 1st April 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 Overnight Ltd Goldfarb v Higgins and Another – Times Law Reports

Posted April 2nd, 2009 in fraudulent trading, law reports, limitations, winding up by sally

In re Overnight Ltd Goldfarb v Higgins and Another

Chancery Division

“The cause of action for fraudulent trading under section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 accrued on the making of the winding-up order.”

The Times, 2nd April 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v Amway (UK) Ltd – Times Law Reports

Posted March 18th, 2009 in law reports, public interest, undertakings, winding up by sally

Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v Amway (UK) Ltd

Court of Appeal

“Where winding-up proceedings were brought against a company because its trading practices were ‘inherently objectionable’ under section 124A of the Insolvency Act 1986, as inserted by section 60(3) of the Companies Act 1989, it was open to the judge to dismiss the proceedings on the basis of assurances from the company that the objectionable features of its business model would be reformed.”

The Times, 18th March 2009

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.

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

Posted February 18th, 2009 in insolvency, law reports, locus standi, partnerships, winding up by sally

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.

In re Overnight Ltd; Goldfarb v Higgins and others – WLR Daily

Posted February 13th, 2009 in fraudulent trading, law reports, limitations, winding up by sally

In re Overnight Ltd; Goldfarb v Higgins and others; [2009] WLR (D) 49

The cause of action for fraudulent trading under s 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 arose on the day the winding up order was made and not when either the petition was presented or the provisional liquidator appointed.”

WLR Daily, 12th February 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.

Managa Properties Ltd v Brittain – WLR Daily

Posted February 11th, 2009 in law reports, liquidators, winding up by sally

Managa Properties Ltd v Brittain [2009] EWHC 157 (Ch); [2009] WLR (D) 42

“Where an application was made under s 172(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 for an order directing the liquidator to call a creditors’ meeting for the purpose of seeking to replace the liquidator, the applicant had to show that it was in the best interests of the liquidation for such an order to be made.”

WLR Daily, 10th February 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.

Roman Arkadievich Abramovich: the judgment in full – The Times

Posted October 30th, 2008 in jurisdiction, law reports, Russia, winding up by sally

“High Court ruling includes details of Abramovich’s UK properties, other assets, travel plans and business dealings.”

Full story

The Times, 30th October 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

McGrath and Others v Riddell and Another – Times Law Reports

Posted April 11th, 2008 in conflict of laws, insolvency, law reports, winding up by sally

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

Posted April 11th, 2008 in conflict of laws, insolvency, law reports, winding up by sally

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.