Welcome to the R3 Technical Library, a unique resource for searching technical and specialist information within the sector. The below are available resources for Legislation Case Law.
The content of this page is protected.
Already Registered?
Login to your account below
Quillan v The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2025] UKFTT 00421 (TC) (10 April 2025)
The First Tier Tribunal has issued a judgment in Quillan v The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2025] UKFTT 00421 (TC) . The tribunal considered the tax implications of an overdrawn director's loan account following the liquidation of a company. View
The First Tier Tribunal has issued a judgment in Quillan v The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2025] UKFTT 00421 (TC) . The tribunal considered the tax implications of an overdrawn director's loan account following the liquidation of a company. View
El-Husseiny and another (Appellants) v Invest Bank PSC (Respondent) UKSC/2023/0080
This case explored whether s423, s238 and s339 of the Insolvency Act 1986 are limited to assets owned either personally by the debtor, or specfically by the company View
This case explored whether s423, s238 and s339 of the Insolvency Act 1986 are limited to assets owned either personally by the debtor, or specfically by the company View
Pagden v Ridgley [2024] EWHC 3047 (Ch) (28 November 2024)
This case determined whether an Administrator's remuneration for realising a fixed charge asset is fixed under Part 18 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016. View
This case determined whether an Administrator's remuneration for realising a fixed charge asset is fixed under Part 18 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016. View
Re A Company (21 October 2024)
This case was an application for an injunction to restrain presentation of a petition. View
This case was an application for an injunction to restrain presentation of a petition. View
Hobson and another v OAS Realisations (2022) Ltd (formerly known as Open Administration Systems Ltd) (in creditors' voluntary liquidation) [2024] EWHC 1491 (Ch) (17 June 2024)
The case revolved around the validity of a notice that initiated the transition of OAS Realisations (2022) Ltd from administration to creditors' voluntary liquidation. The joint administrators of the company, anticipating they could only pay a dividend to a preferential creditor (HMRC) and not to ordinary unsecured creditors, filed this notice at Companies House. View
The case revolved around the validity of a notice that initiated the transition of OAS Realisations (2022) Ltd from administration to creditors' voluntary liquidation. The joint administrators of the company, anticipating they could only pay a dividend to a preferential creditor (HMRC) and not to ordinary unsecured creditors, filed this notice at Companies House. View
Burke & Ors v Peabody Construction Ltd [2024] EWHC 392 (Ch) (23 February 2024)
The case considered an appeal against a decision made by ICC Judge Prentis regarding the allocation of costs in a Company Voluntary Arrangement dispute. View
The case considered an appeal against a decision made by ICC Judge Prentis regarding the allocation of costs in a Company Voluntary Arrangement dispute. View
UKCloud Ltd, In the Matter Of (Re Insolvency Act 1986) [2024] EWHC 1259 (Ch) (24 May 2024)
In this case, the court addressed the issue of whether a debenture granted by the company to Harbert European Specialty Lending Company II SARL created a fixed or floating charge over certain internet protocol addresses. View
In this case, the court addressed the issue of whether a debenture granted by the company to Harbert European Specialty Lending Company II SARL created a fixed or floating charge over certain internet protocol addresses. View
Taylor v Savik & Anor [2024] EW Misc 15 (CC) (5 April 2024)
The undischarged bankrupt applied for an order that the county court trial of an ongoing Insolvency Act 1986 case be heard by a jury rather than a judge alone. This request was opposed by the applicant, the trustee in bankruptcy. View
The undischarged bankrupt applied for an order that the county court trial of an ongoing Insolvency Act 1986 case be heard by a jury rather than a judge alone. This request was opposed by the applicant, the trustee in bankruptcy. View
Supreme Court decision in R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and another (1 November 2023)
The Supreme Court made it clear that an administrator of a company appointed under the IA86 is not an ‘officer’ of the company within the meaning of section 194(3) of TULRCA. View
The Supreme Court made it clear that an administrator of a company appointed under the IA86 is not an ‘officer’ of the company within the meaning of section 194(3) of TULRCA. View
Denaxe Ltd v Cooper & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 752 (30 June 2023)
The appeal concerned the extent of immunity from subsequent claims which may be enjoyed by receivers appointed by the court by way of equitable execution who obtain the approval of the court for a sale of assets over which they have been appointed. View
The appeal concerned the extent of immunity from subsequent claims which may be enjoyed by receivers appointed by the court by way of equitable execution who obtain the approval of the court for a sale of assets over which they have been appointed. View
Brake and another v The Chedington Court Estate Ltd (10 August 2023)
This Supreme Court decision re-enforces the basic principle that a party without an economic interest in an insolvency will face a high hurdle before they may establish standing to challenge an officeholder’s conduct. From a practical perspective, officeholders will be allowed to get on with administering their estate, in most circumstances, without the fear of challenge from an out-of-the-money party. View
This Supreme Court decision re-enforces the basic principle that a party without an economic interest in an insolvency will face a high hurdle before they may establish standing to challenge an officeholder’s conduct. From a practical perspective, officeholders will be allowed to get on with administering their estate, in most circumstances, without the fear of challenge from an out-of-the-money party. View
Patley Wood Farm LLP & Ors v Kicks & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 901 (28 July 2023)
Lord Justice Arnold “It is not the Trustees' duty to act in the interests of the creditors at all costs .” View
Lord Justice Arnold “It is not the Trustees' duty to act in the interests of the creditors at all costs .” View
Re Avanti Communications Ltd (in administration) [2023] EWHC 940 (Ch) (25 April 2023)
The Joint Administrators of Avanti Communications Ltd sought determination of whether certain assets which had been sold by the Company (via a pre-pack sale) were secured by fixed or floating charges. The characterisation of assets was important as it would determine how much was to be returned to each class of creditor. The application was made as an application for directions pursuant to paragraph 63 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986. View
The Joint Administrators of Avanti Communications Ltd sought determination of whether certain assets which had been sold by the Company (via a pre-pack sale) were secured by fixed or floating charges. The characterisation of assets was important as it would determine how much was to be returned to each class of creditor. The application was made as an application for directions pursuant to paragraph 63 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986. View
Durkan (as liquidator of Long Compton Project Ltd) and another v Jones (13 June 2023)
The Chancery Court ruled on the bankruptcy petition brought by the petitioners against the debtor, the director of a wound-up company. The sole issue before the court was whether it had jurisdiction to make a bankruptcy order, specifically whether at any time in the period of three years ending with the date of presentation of the petition the debtor had either had a place of residence in the jurisdiction of England and Wales within the meaning of s 265(2)(b)(i) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) or had carried on business in the jurisdiction within the meaning of IA 1986, s 265(2)(b)(ii) as the petitioners claimed in the petition. The debtor, who was in the USA, had denied both by his notice of opposition and in his evidence. The court held... View
The Chancery Court ruled on the bankruptcy petition brought by the petitioners against the debtor, the director of a wound-up company. The sole issue before the court was whether it had jurisdiction to make a bankruptcy order, specifically whether at any time in the period of three years ending with the date of presentation of the petition the debtor had either had a place of residence in the jurisdiction of England and Wales within the meaning of s 265(2)(b)(i) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) or had carried on business in the jurisdiction within the meaning of IA 1986, s 265(2)(b)(ii) as the petitioners claimed in the petition. The debtor, who was in the USA, had denied both by his notice of opposition and in his evidence. The court held... View
Frosdick v Official Receiver (26 May 2023)
The King's Bench Division dismissed an application to set aside an extended civil restraint order (the ECRO). The applicant had instructed solicitors to represent him in a personal injury claim and, following the solicitors' termination of the conditional fee agreement, a bankruptcy order had been made against the applicant, concerning unpaid legal fees. The applicant had made several applications to the County Court to set aside the bankruptcy order which had been dismissed, as totally without merit. His applications against the trustee in bankruptcy (F) had also been dismissed, and, notwithstanding that three ECROs had been made against the applicant, he had issued a further application notice, seeking permission to bring a fresh claim against the respondent Official Receiver (the OR) and F, concerning 'allegations of breach of duty in the managing of his bankruptcy'... View
The King's Bench Division dismissed an application to set aside an extended civil restraint order (the ECRO). The applicant had instructed solicitors to represent him in a personal injury claim and, following the solicitors' termination of the conditional fee agreement, a bankruptcy order had been made against the applicant, concerning unpaid legal fees. The applicant had made several applications to the County Court to set aside the bankruptcy order which had been dismissed, as totally without merit. His applications against the trustee in bankruptcy (F) had also been dismissed, and, notwithstanding that three ECROs had been made against the applicant, he had issued a further application notice, seeking permission to bring a fresh claim against the respondent Official Receiver (the OR) and F, concerning 'allegations of breach of duty in the managing of his bankruptcy'... View
Re Lloyds British Testing Ltd (in liquidation) Manolete Partners plc v White (22 May 2023)
The Chancery Division dismissed the respondent's application for permission to appeal the trial courts substantive decision that proposed to make an order that had required the respondent to give written notice to the pension scheme trustees requesting, so far as necessary, for all of his remaining pension fund to be designated as a drawdown pension fund, exercising such rights as he would have to draw down the entire fund, and directing that payment be made to a nominated UK bank account, denominated in sterling, in the name of the respondent, and previously notified in writing to the applicant. The respondent alleged that the misfeasance, and the purchase of the property, were wholly unrelated, either factually or in point of time. Further, that if one looked at the position of someone who had funded the pension themselves... View
The Chancery Division dismissed the respondent's application for permission to appeal the trial courts substantive decision that proposed to make an order that had required the respondent to give written notice to the pension scheme trustees requesting, so far as necessary, for all of his remaining pension fund to be designated as a drawdown pension fund, exercising such rights as he would have to draw down the entire fund, and directing that payment be made to a nominated UK bank account, denominated in sterling, in the name of the respondent, and previously notified in writing to the applicant. The respondent alleged that the misfeasance, and the purchase of the property, were wholly unrelated, either factually or in point of time. Further, that if one looked at the position of someone who had funded the pension themselves... View
Town and Country Properties (GB) Ltd and others v Patel and others (17 May 2023)
The Chancery Division dismissed an appeal that had arisen from two orders. By the first order, a winding up petition was dismissed in respect of the first respondent, a statutory demand was set aside, and a bankruptcy petition against the third respondent was dismissed due to a dispute about whether the third respondent was a partner of the first respondent, and whether there was a partnership. By the second order, the appellants were ordered to pay the costs of the three respondents. The winding up petition was dismissed because... View
The Chancery Division dismissed an appeal that had arisen from two orders. By the first order, a winding up petition was dismissed in respect of the first respondent, a statutory demand was set aside, and a bankruptcy petition against the third respondent was dismissed due to a dispute about whether the third respondent was a partner of the first respondent, and whether there was a partnership. By the second order, the appellants were ordered to pay the costs of the three respondents. The winding up petition was dismissed because... View
Re Nasmyth Group Ltd (28 April 2023)
The Chancery Division refused to sanction a restructuring plan under Pt 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) as a matter of discretion. The applicant company (the company) applied for an order for directions for the convening and conduct of meetings of certain company creditors (the plan meetings) to consider and (if appropriate) approve a restructuring plan (the plan). A convening order allowed the company to convene plan meetings to consider and (if appropriate) approve the plan. The plan was approved by a majority of all other classes of creditors apart from the preferential creditor class, of which the sole member was HMRC. The company applied to the court to sanction the plan and order a 'cross-class cram down' in respect of HMRC. Three creditors opposed sanction of the plan... View
The Chancery Division refused to sanction a restructuring plan under Pt 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) as a matter of discretion. The applicant company (the company) applied for an order for directions for the convening and conduct of meetings of certain company creditors (the plan meetings) to consider and (if appropriate) approve a restructuring plan (the plan). A convening order allowed the company to convene plan meetings to consider and (if appropriate) approve the plan. The plan was approved by a majority of all other classes of creditors apart from the preferential creditor class, of which the sole member was HMRC. The company applied to the court to sanction the plan and order a 'cross-class cram down' in respect of HMRC. Three creditors opposed sanction of the plan... View
Re. Al Saud; Al Saud v Mobile Telecommunications Company KSCP (18 May 2023)
The Chancery Division held that, applying settled principles and the lower standard of proof, the respondent company (MTC) had shown a good arguable case, on the evidence, that the applicant debtor, who was a member of the Saudi royal family, had had a place of residence in England during the relevant period, and that MTC had demonstrated 'a good reason' to authorise service on the debtor out of the jurisdiction and by alternative methods for the purposes of CPR 6.15(1), both as at the date of the service order and at all material times since. The court so ruled in circumstances where: (i) MTC had presented a bankruptcy petition against the debtor... View
The Chancery Division held that, applying settled principles and the lower standard of proof, the respondent company (MTC) had shown a good arguable case, on the evidence, that the applicant debtor, who was a member of the Saudi royal family, had had a place of residence in England during the relevant period, and that MTC had demonstrated 'a good reason' to authorise service on the debtor out of the jurisdiction and by alternative methods for the purposes of CPR 6.15(1), both as at the date of the service order and at all material times since. The court so ruled in circumstances where: (i) MTC had presented a bankruptcy petition against the debtor... View
Re Great Annual Savings Company Ltd (16 May 2023)
The Chancery Division dismissed an application by the applicant company for an order sanctioning a restructuring plan (the plan) under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006. Meetings had been held with 15 classes of creditor, 12 of which achieved 100% support, one of which received no attendance, and in two of which, the majority voted against the plan. There was no power to sanction the plan under section 901F of the Act, as it required the support of all creditor classes by a 75% majority. Accordingly, the plan could only be sanctioned if the requirements of section 901G of the Act were satisfied. It was accepted that condition B of section 901G was satisfied. The principal challenge in condition A was... View
The Chancery Division dismissed an application by the applicant company for an order sanctioning a restructuring plan (the plan) under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006. Meetings had been held with 15 classes of creditor, 12 of which achieved 100% support, one of which received no attendance, and in two of which, the majority voted against the plan. There was no power to sanction the plan under section 901F of the Act, as it required the support of all creditor classes by a 75% majority. Accordingly, the plan could only be sanctioned if the requirements of section 901G of the Act were satisfied. It was accepted that condition B of section 901G was satisfied. The principal challenge in condition A was... View
Further Information & Articles
Beth RedfernFind INSOLVENCY & RESTRUCTURING ADVICE
R3 members can provide advice on a range of business and personal finance issues. To find an R3 member who can help you, click below.
