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.
Re Arise Networks Ltd Official Receiver v Obaigbena (Judgment date 8 April 2021)
Company – Director. Where a company was wholly reliant on external loans to be able to discharge its liabilities, a director needed to be able to justify a decision to cause the company to continue to trade. View
Company – Director. Where a company was wholly reliant on external loans to be able to discharge its liabilities, a director needed to be able to justify a decision to cause the company to continue to trade. View
Re Zoom UK Distribution Ltd (in administration) Wessely and another (in their capacity as joint administrators of Zoom UK Distribution Ltd (in administration)) v Rubra and others (Judgment date 31 March 2021)
Administration – Appointment of administrator. The applicant administrators were entitled to a declaration that their appointment had been valid, despite a defect in procedure relating to their appointment. View
Administration – Appointment of administrator. The applicant administrators were entitled to a declaration that their appointment had been valid, despite a defect in procedure relating to their appointment. View
Avery-Gee and others v Sibley and others (Judgment date 31 March 2021)
Administration – Contractual interpretation. In proceedings concerning a company in administration, which managed and promoted 'peer-to-peer loans, and where the central issue concerned the order of priority between the fees to be paid to the company and investors' right to recoup a loan... View
Administration – Contractual interpretation. In proceedings concerning a company in administration, which managed and promoted 'peer-to-peer loans, and where the central issue concerned the order of priority between the fees to be paid to the company and investors' right to recoup a loan... View
Re Bell Pottinger LLP and another Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v Geoghegan and others (Judgment date 23 March 2021)
Partnership – Limited liability partnership. The applicants unsuccessfully applied to strike out disqualification proceedings brought against them by the claimant Secretary of State pursuant to s 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. Their main case was that, as they were not members of the management board of the limited liability partnership (LLP) in question, they were not involved in or responsible for the management and control of its business and affairs. View
Partnership – Limited liability partnership. The applicants unsuccessfully applied to strike out disqualification proceedings brought against them by the claimant Secretary of State pursuant to s 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. Their main case was that, as they were not members of the management board of the limited liability partnership (LLP) in question, they were not involved in or responsible for the management and control of its business and affairs. View
Re Virgin Active Holdings Ltd and other companies, 1 April 2021 (Judgment)
Virgin Active Holdings Ltd and other companies seek an order pursuant to section 901C of the Companies Act 2006 (Restructuring Plan) convening meetings of certain of their creditorsfor the purpose of considering and, if thought fit, approving restructuring plans between each of the Plan Companies and their Plan Creditors. View
Virgin Active Holdings Ltd and other companies seek an order pursuant to section 901C of the Companies Act 2006 (Restructuring Plan) convening meetings of certain of their creditorsfor the purpose of considering and, if thought fit, approving restructuring plans between each of the Plan Companies and their Plan Creditors. View
Pathania v Tashie-Lewis and another (Judgment date 8 March 2021)
Insolvency – Transaction at undervalue. In a claim for relief under s 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the Chancery Division held that the claimant had failed to meet the burden of proof on him in that there was no documentary evidence to show that there had been a sale at an undervalue, as alleged. The court held that the circumstances, the collusive sale and the other facts, combined with the unreliable witness testimony, could not tip the evidential burden in the claimant's favour. View
Insolvency – Transaction at undervalue. In a claim for relief under s 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the Chancery Division held that the claimant had failed to meet the burden of proof on him in that there was no documentary evidence to show that there had been a sale at an undervalue, as alleged. The court held that the circumstances, the collusive sale and the other facts, combined with the unreliable witness testimony, could not tip the evidential burden in the claimant's favour. View
Re Shahi Tandoori Restaurant Ltd; Brown (liquidator of Shahi Tandoori Restaurant Ltd) v Bashir and another (Judgment date 26 February 2021)
Insolvency – Directors. The liquidator of a company was granted a declaration that transactions in the sum of £771,918 comprising of monies belonging to the company retained for the benefit of the respondents (two directors of the company during the course of trading) had been illicitly removed by the respondents. The Chancery Division ordered the taking of an account with the help of the respondents. View
Insolvency – Directors. The liquidator of a company was granted a declaration that transactions in the sum of £771,918 comprising of monies belonging to the company retained for the benefit of the respondents (two directors of the company during the course of trading) had been illicitly removed by the respondents. The Chancery Division ordered the taking of an account with the help of the respondents. View
State Bank of India and others v Mallya (Judgment date 8 February 2021)
Guarantee — Enforcement — Release of funds View
Guarantee — Enforcement — Release of funds View
Re Seabrooke Road Ltd; Security Trustee Services Ltd and others v Seabrooke Road Ltd (Judgment date 25 January 2021)
Administration — Appointment of administrator — Receivers application for removal of notices of intention to appoint administrator from court file and, among other things, for appointment of joint receivers of freehold property to be declared valid. View
Administration — Appointment of administrator — Receivers application for removal of notices of intention to appoint administrator from court file and, among other things, for appointment of joint receivers of freehold property to be declared valid. View
Re Peter Jones (China) Ltd Smith and another (joint administrators of Peter Jones (China) Ltd) v Registrar of Companies (5 February 2021)
The Registrar does have discretion to remove ‘unnecessary material' within the meaning of s 1074 of the Companies Act 2006. View
The Registrar does have discretion to remove ‘unnecessary material' within the meaning of s 1074 of the Companies Act 2006. View
Re Wasu Edwards (trustee in bankruptcy of Wasu) v Aurora Leasing Ltd and others (20 January 2021)
The High Court has dismissed an application made by a trustee in bankruptcy which argued that payments made by the bankrupt to companies after the presentation of a bankruptcy petition were void. View
The High Court has dismissed an application made by a trustee in bankruptcy which argued that payments made by the bankrupt to companies after the presentation of a bankruptcy petition were void. View
Re Eric Andrew Robinson (in Bankruptcy) [2020] EWHC 2928 (Ch)
In this case the court held, amongst other matters, that a Trustee carrying on a business of a Bankrupt can only be continued for the purpose of winding it up beneficially, which requires only a limited period of trading. View
In this case the court held, amongst other matters, that a Trustee carrying on a business of a Bankrupt can only be continued for the purpose of winding it up beneficially, which requires only a limited period of trading. View
Re Saint George Investment Holdings Ltd Manolete Partners plc v Matta and others [2020] EWHC 2965 (Ch)
An application was made for repayment of a significantly overdrawn director’s loan account (DLA) (c£1.3m) and various preference payments and TUVs. The court held that the director had breached his obligations under CA 2006 in respect of his dealings with the DLA and was liable to pay the sum sum in respect of which the DLA was overdrawn as at the date on which the Company was placed into administration. View
An application was made for repayment of a significantly overdrawn director’s loan account (DLA) (c£1.3m) and various preference payments and TUVs. The court held that the director had breached his obligations under CA 2006 in respect of his dealings with the DLA and was liable to pay the sum sum in respect of which the DLA was overdrawn as at the date on which the Company was placed into administration. View
Re Totalbrand Ltd Cage Consultants Ltd v Iqbal and another [2020] EWHC 2917 (Ch)
The applicants applied for permission to appeal against a decision of District Judge Matharu, whereby she dismissed the application by the applicants to dismiss or stay proceedings against them. Those proceedings were in relation to various rights of action including statutory rights of action (e.g. TUV and preferences) that were assigned to the respondent (CCL) by the liquidator of Totalbrand Ltd. Application REFUSED. View
The applicants applied for permission to appeal against a decision of District Judge Matharu, whereby she dismissed the application by the applicants to dismiss or stay proceedings against them. Those proceedings were in relation to various rights of action including statutory rights of action (e.g. TUV and preferences) that were assigned to the respondent (CCL) by the liquidator of Totalbrand Ltd. Application REFUSED. View
Re L & N D Development and Design Ltd Dixon v Myers and another (as administra-tors of L & N D Development and Design Ltd) [2020] EWHC 2803 (Ch)
The applicant (director and sole shareholder) applied under para 74(1)(a) sch. B1 of the IA86 for an order requiring the respondent (administrator) to assign a cause of action to her. The application was REFUSED as the applicant failed to discharge the burden of showing that there was real prospect of success in respect of the cause of action. View
The applicant (director and sole shareholder) applied under para 74(1)(a) sch. B1 of the IA86 for an order requiring the respondent (administrator) to assign a cause of action to her. The application was REFUSED as the applicant failed to discharge the burden of showing that there was real prospect of success in respect of the cause of action. View
John Doyle Construction Ltd (in liquidation) v Erith Contractors Ltd [2020] EWHC 2451 (TCC)
In this case a claim for enforcement of an adjudicator's decision by way of summary judgment under CPR Part 7, in proceedings issued by JDC, which is in liquidation, and has been since 2013 FAILED. The court set down five principles which will be applied when an insolvent party seeks to enforce an adjudicator’s award. View
In this case a claim for enforcement of an adjudicator's decision by way of summary judgment under CPR Part 7, in proceedings issued by JDC, which is in liquidation, and has been since 2013 FAILED. The court set down five principles which will be applied when an insolvent party seeks to enforce an adjudicator’s award. View
Re IT Protect Ltd (in liquidation) Bramston and another (as joint liquidators of IT Protect Ltd) v Pye and another [2020] EWHC 2473 (Ch)
The case concerned a misfeasance claim against two respondents; a de jure director of the company and a de facto director. View
The case concerned a misfeasance claim against two respondents; a de jure director of the company and a de facto director. View
Re. Sunbird Business Services Ltd [2020] EWHC 2493 (Ch)
Mr Justice Snowden has declined to sanction a scheme of arrangement due to the "paucity of information" provided by the company to the creditors ahead of the creditor vote. He also commented on the practice of lock-up agreements and highlighted concerns with the payment of lock-up fees. View
Mr Justice Snowden has declined to sanction a scheme of arrangement due to the "paucity of information" provided by the company to the creditors ahead of the creditor vote. He also commented on the practice of lock-up agreements and highlighted concerns with the payment of lock-up fees. View
Fakhry v Pagden and another [2020] EWCA Civ 1207
The appellant succeeded on his appeal against an order dismissing an application to, among other things, to set aside an ex parte order, by which three associated companies, which had been dissolved at the conclusion of their respective members' voluntary liquidations, had been ordered to be restored to the register of companies; and new (present) liquidators had been appointed. View
The appellant succeeded on his appeal against an order dismissing an application to, among other things, to set aside an ex parte order, by which three associated companies, which had been dissolved at the conclusion of their respective members' voluntary liquidations, had been ordered to be restored to the register of companies; and new (present) liquidators had been appointed. View
Re Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd (Part 26A, CA 2006 'Restructuring Plan')
On 2 September 2020, Mr Justice Snowden decided to sanction the Restructuring Plan proposed by Virgin Alantic Airways Limited. This judgment gives the reasons behind the sanction. View
On 2 September 2020, Mr Justice Snowden decided to sanction the Restructuring Plan proposed by Virgin Alantic Airways Limited. This judgment gives the reasons behind the sanction. View
Further Information & Articles
Caroline Sumner
Ben LuxfordFind 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.
