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 A Company (10 June 2022)
The Chancery Division dismissed the applicant petitioner's application for permission to appeal, in proceedings concerning a winding-up petition. The decision of the judge had concerned the Covid-19 provisions of Sch 10 to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the Schedule). The court held that there was no warrant in the wording of para 5(3) of the Schedule to conclude that it was to be applied or tested narrowly as at the date when the debt being claimed in the petition had fallen due. The appeal lacked real prospects of success and permission to appeal would be refused. View
The Chancery Division dismissed the applicant petitioner's application for permission to appeal, in proceedings concerning a winding-up petition. The decision of the judge had concerned the Covid-19 provisions of Sch 10 to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the Schedule). The court held that there was no warrant in the wording of para 5(3) of the Schedule to conclude that it was to be applied or tested narrowly as at the date when the debt being claimed in the petition had fallen due. The appeal lacked real prospects of success and permission to appeal would be refused. View
Re Hurst Allen (26 August 2022)
The Chancery Division granted a declaration that a Declaration of Trust executed by the first and second respondents in respect of property had amounted to a transaction at an undervalue and had been executed for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of their creditors or of otherwise prejudicing the interests of such a person for the purposes of s 423(1) and (3) of the Insolvency Act 1986. View
The Chancery Division granted a declaration that a Declaration of Trust executed by the first and second respondents in respect of property had amounted to a transaction at an undervalue and had been executed for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of their creditors or of otherwise prejudicing the interests of such a person for the purposes of s 423(1) and (3) of the Insolvency Act 1986. View
Re BHS Group Ltd (1) (19 August 2022)
The Chancery Division allowed the appellant's application for his renewed application for permission to appeal from a decision which had dismissed the application to strike out certain parts of the respondents' statements of case in the proceedings. The appellant relied on the grounds that the judge (i) had misdirected himself as to the issue which he had to determine on the application; (ii) he erred in law in not striking out the overarching case; (iii) he erred in law in finding that office holders were not ordinary litigants for the purposes of pleading claims; and (iv) he erred in the exercise of his discretion in refusing to strike out the alternative date claims and/or the overarching case. The court held, among other things, that the judge had discretion when he dealt with the strike out application, but the exercise of that discretion was flawed. View
The Chancery Division allowed the appellant's application for his renewed application for permission to appeal from a decision which had dismissed the application to strike out certain parts of the respondents' statements of case in the proceedings. The appellant relied on the grounds that the judge (i) had misdirected himself as to the issue which he had to determine on the application; (ii) he erred in law in not striking out the overarching case; (iii) he erred in law in finding that office holders were not ordinary litigants for the purposes of pleading claims; and (iv) he erred in the exercise of his discretion in refusing to strike out the alternative date claims and/or the overarching case. The court held, among other things, that the judge had discretion when he dealt with the strike out application, but the exercise of that discretion was flawed. View
Re Klimvest plc Duneau (17 March 2022)
The Chancery Division made an order to wind up the company. The petitioner sought an order to wind up the company under s 122(1)(g) of the Insolvency Act 1986 on the basis that it was just and equitable to wind up the company. The court held, among other things, that although the alternative grounds for seeking to wind up the company on the just and equitable ground had not been made out, the petitioner and the third respondent had made out the ground for winding up based upon loss of substratum or purpose. Further, having concluded that the petitioner had not unreasonably refused to pursue some alternative remedy, and having considered the various discretionary considerations that arose, including the allegation that the petitioner had not come to court with clean hands, the court made an order to wind up the company. View
The Chancery Division made an order to wind up the company. The petitioner sought an order to wind up the company under s 122(1)(g) of the Insolvency Act 1986 on the basis that it was just and equitable to wind up the company. The court held, among other things, that although the alternative grounds for seeking to wind up the company on the just and equitable ground had not been made out, the petitioner and the third respondent had made out the ground for winding up based upon loss of substratum or purpose. Further, having concluded that the petitioner had not unreasonably refused to pursue some alternative remedy, and having considered the various discretionary considerations that arose, including the allegation that the petitioner had not come to court with clean hands, the court made an order to wind up the company. View
Re Wotherspoon (in bankruptcy) (16 August 2022)
The Chancery Division dismissed the claim, brought by the Trustee in Bankruptcy of the respondent's husband, which alleged that s 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the 1986 Act) had applied where: (i) in order to put the home beyond the reach of creditors, the respondent's husband had transferred his half of the beneficial interest in the matrimonial home to the respondent in 2008, with a restriction that he had a life-time right to prevent disposition of the property (the restriction); or (ii) the husband had released the restriction for no consideration when the home was sold in 2013. In relation to the 2008 transfer, the court held that: ... View
The Chancery Division dismissed the claim, brought by the Trustee in Bankruptcy of the respondent's husband, which alleged that s 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the 1986 Act) had applied where: (i) in order to put the home beyond the reach of creditors, the respondent's husband had transferred his half of the beneficial interest in the matrimonial home to the respondent in 2008, with a restriction that he had a life-time right to prevent disposition of the property (the restriction); or (ii) the husband had released the restriction for no consideration when the home was sold in 2013. In relation to the 2008 transfer, the court held that: ... View
Oceanfill Ltd v Nuffield Health Wellbeing Ltd and another (15 August 2022)
The Chancery Division allowed the claimant company's application for summary judgment, in proceedings where the claimant had claimed for arrears said to be due from the tenant of premises under a lease. The court held that, among other things, Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 took effect as a statutory scheme by operation of law in the same way as a Part 26 scheme of arrangement took effect. There were no other compelling reasons for the claim to be disposed of at trial and not summarily. View
The Chancery Division allowed the claimant company's application for summary judgment, in proceedings where the claimant had claimed for arrears said to be due from the tenant of premises under a lease. The court held that, among other things, Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 took effect as a statutory scheme by operation of law in the same way as a Part 26 scheme of arrangement took effect. There were no other compelling reasons for the claim to be disposed of at trial and not summarily. View
Re De Freitas Revenue and Customs Commissioners v De Freitas (4 August 2022)
The Chancery Division, whilst refusing to dismiss the petitioning creditor's petition for the bankruptcy of the debtor because the debtor had failed to establish any of his grounds for the dismissal of the petition, held that the petition would be adjourned in order to enable the debtor to pay the petition debt in full by obtaining equity release from his assets. View
The Chancery Division, whilst refusing to dismiss the petitioning creditor's petition for the bankruptcy of the debtor because the debtor had failed to establish any of his grounds for the dismissal of the petition, held that the petition would be adjourned in order to enable the debtor to pay the petition debt in full by obtaining equity release from his assets. View
Re Houst Ltd (22 July 2022)
The Chancery Division sanctioned a restructuring plan under Pt 26A of the Companies Act 2006 in respect of a company. The company's business was the provision of property management services for short term/holiday lets. It was severely affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. It was both cash flow and balance sheet insolvent. Three creditors had threatened winding-up petitions, and the company was not in a position to pay the debts claimed by them. If the restructuring plan did not proceed, then there would most likely be an accelerated marketing process leading to a sale in administration (i.e. a pre-pack administration). The court held, among other things, that if it refused to sanction the plan, then the evidence indicated that all creditors, including HMRC, would be worse off. Therefore, the judge exercised his discretion to sanction the plan. View
The Chancery Division sanctioned a restructuring plan under Pt 26A of the Companies Act 2006 in respect of a company. The company's business was the provision of property management services for short term/holiday lets. It was severely affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. It was both cash flow and balance sheet insolvent. Three creditors had threatened winding-up petitions, and the company was not in a position to pay the debts claimed by them. If the restructuring plan did not proceed, then there would most likely be an accelerated marketing process leading to a sale in administration (i.e. a pre-pack administration). The court held, among other things, that if it refused to sanction the plan, then the evidence indicated that all creditors, including HMRC, would be worse off. Therefore, the judge exercised his discretion to sanction the plan. View
Re London Oil Gas Ltd (in administration); O'Connell and others v LPE Support Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) (20 June 2022)
he Chancery Division allowed the application, brought by the joint administrators of London Oil and Gas Ltd (LOG), to set aside an assignment by which LOG had purported to assign its rights against one of its borrowers, Atlantic Petroleum, to the respondent for consideration of £1. Among other things, the court held that the assignment had been void for want of authority given that: (i) the decision to enter into the assignment had not been taken by LOG's board of directors but merely a singular director (the director) who had no actual authority to act alone; ... View
he Chancery Division allowed the application, brought by the joint administrators of London Oil and Gas Ltd (LOG), to set aside an assignment by which LOG had purported to assign its rights against one of its borrowers, Atlantic Petroleum, to the respondent for consideration of £1. Among other things, the court held that the assignment had been void for want of authority given that: (i) the decision to enter into the assignment had not been taken by LOG's board of directors but merely a singular director (the director) who had no actual authority to act alone; ... View
Re Houst Ltd (14 June 2022)
The Chancery Division allowed the claimant company's application for an order to convene meetings in order to consider and potentially approve a restructuring plan. The company, which had been severely impacted by the coronavirus pandemic and was cashflow insolvent, had been threatened by winding-up petitions. The court held that the various requirements for the order to be made had been met, and an order would be made convening the proposed meetings. View
The Chancery Division allowed the claimant company's application for an order to convene meetings in order to consider and potentially approve a restructuring plan. The company, which had been severely impacted by the coronavirus pandemic and was cashflow insolvent, had been threatened by winding-up petitions. The court held that the various requirements for the order to be made had been met, and an order would be made convening the proposed meetings. View
Re P G D Ltd (in liquidation) Manolete Partners plc v Hope and another (10 June 2022)
he Chancery Division allowed the appellant's appeal from a decision which had imposed a limitation on the amount of recoveries to pay off all liquidation debts, fees, remuneration and expenses. The appellant company had been assigned claims of a company that had gone into liquidation. The appellant brought claims against the respondents, former directors and shareholders of the company, for breach of duty and claims relating to unlawful dividends and undervalue transaction claims. The respondents were found to be jointly and severally liable for breach of duty and were ordered to pay. The judge, however ... View
he Chancery Division allowed the appellant's appeal from a decision which had imposed a limitation on the amount of recoveries to pay off all liquidation debts, fees, remuneration and expenses. The appellant company had been assigned claims of a company that had gone into liquidation. The appellant brought claims against the respondents, former directors and shareholders of the company, for breach of duty and claims relating to unlawful dividends and undervalue transaction claims. The respondents were found to be jointly and severally liable for breach of duty and were ordered to pay. The judge, however ... View
Official Receiver v Obaigbena (18 May 2022)
The Chancery Division dismissed the appeal of the appellant from a decision of the deputy insolvency and companies court which disqualified the appellant from being involved in the management of a limited company. The appellant argued that (i) the judge had applied the wrong legal test by failing to consider and decide whether the appellant had known or ought to had known that there was no reasonable prospect of creditors being paid or of the company avoiding insolvent liquidation; and (ii) that the judge erred in disqualifying the appellant for a period of 7 years. The court held, among other things ... View
The Chancery Division dismissed the appeal of the appellant from a decision of the deputy insolvency and companies court which disqualified the appellant from being involved in the management of a limited company. The appellant argued that (i) the judge had applied the wrong legal test by failing to consider and decide whether the appellant had known or ought to had known that there was no reasonable prospect of creditors being paid or of the company avoiding insolvent liquidation; and (ii) that the judge erred in disqualifying the appellant for a period of 7 years. The court held, among other things ... View
Re Swiss Cottage (38) Properties Limited (in liquidation); Fitzroy Street Capital Inc and another v Manning and another (20 June 2022)
The Chancery Division dismissed the applicants' claims in a case that revolved around the sale process and value of two houses in London (the properties). The case concerned allegations of breach of duty by company administrators appointed in relation to two companies whose business involved the development and sale of the properties. The applicants argued that insufficient value was realised from the properties and made a number of the allegations of wrongdoing against the administrators. First, their primary claim was that by entering into certain contractual arrangements with a buyer... View
The Chancery Division dismissed the applicants' claims in a case that revolved around the sale process and value of two houses in London (the properties). The case concerned allegations of breach of duty by company administrators appointed in relation to two companies whose business involved the development and sale of the properties. The applicants argued that insufficient value was realised from the properties and made a number of the allegations of wrongdoing against the administrators. First, their primary claim was that by entering into certain contractual arrangements with a buyer... View
Citibank, NA, London Branch v Speciality Steel UK Ltd & Ors (7 June 2022)
The Chancery Division held that it was likely that a winding up order would be made, in proceedings concerning three companies. The court held that the ground specified in s 123(1) (e) of the Insolvency Act 1986, namely that it was proved to the satisfaction of the court that the company was unable to pay its debts as they fell due, would apply even if Coronavirus had not had a financial effect on the companies. Consequently, the petitions would not be struck out. View
The Chancery Division held that it was likely that a winding up order would be made, in proceedings concerning three companies. The court held that the ground specified in s 123(1) (e) of the Insolvency Act 1986, namely that it was proved to the satisfaction of the court that the company was unable to pay its debts as they fell due, would apply even if Coronavirus had not had a financial effect on the companies. Consequently, the petitions would not be struck out. View
Shop Direct Finance Company Ltd v The Official Receiver (6 June 2022)
The Commercial Court allowed the claimant's application under CPR Pt 8 who sought declaratory relief against the defendant relating to the time limitation provision governing complaints referred pursuant to the Financial Ombudsman Service. The complaints concerned payment protection insurance which was allegedly mis-sold to consumers who since became bankrupt and whose respective estates duly vested in TOR by operation of law. TOR notified a bulk complaint... View
The Commercial Court allowed the claimant's application under CPR Pt 8 who sought declaratory relief against the defendant relating to the time limitation provision governing complaints referred pursuant to the Financial Ombudsman Service. The complaints concerned payment protection insurance which was allegedly mis-sold to consumers who since became bankrupt and whose respective estates duly vested in TOR by operation of law. TOR notified a bulk complaint... View
Lees v Kaye and another (13 May 2022)
The Queen's Bench Division ruled that the applicant, who had owned a long lease in respect of one of two flats in a building, was entitled to an order which restored the position to what it had been before her eviction and the sale of the lease had taken place. The court so ruled on the applicant's application for a declaration that the execution of a writ of possession concerning the flat was null and void pursuant to reg 7(12) of the Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020, SI 2020/1311, because there had been a mental health crisis moratorium in place to protect the applicant at the time of execution. The first respondent... View
The Queen's Bench Division ruled that the applicant, who had owned a long lease in respect of one of two flats in a building, was entitled to an order which restored the position to what it had been before her eviction and the sale of the lease had taken place. The court so ruled on the applicant's application for a declaration that the execution of a writ of possession concerning the flat was null and void pursuant to reg 7(12) of the Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020, SI 2020/1311, because there had been a mental health crisis moratorium in place to protect the applicant at the time of execution. The first respondent... View
Re E D & F Man Holdings Ltd (23 March 2022)
The applicant company (the company) was the ultimate company for a group that was a global trader in agricultural products. It also had a brokerage business that offered its customers direct access to global commodities markets. The company applied for an order sanctioning a restructuring plan (the plan) under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006... View
The applicant company (the company) was the ultimate company for a group that was a global trader in agricultural products. It also had a brokerage business that offered its customers direct access to global commodities markets. The company applied for an order sanctioning a restructuring plan (the plan) under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006... View
Re Glam and Tan Ltd Barnett (as liquidator of Glam and Tan Ltd) and another v Litras (8 April 2022)
The Chancery Division allowed the applicants' application, in which they sought payment to a company that was in liquidation. Following incorporation, the company started to trade as a beauty salon. Its sole de jure director was the respondent. The first applicant liquidator sought relief on the basis that the respondent had breached her duties owed to the company. The court held, among other things, that the respondent was ... View
The Chancery Division allowed the applicants' application, in which they sought payment to a company that was in liquidation. Following incorporation, the company started to trade as a beauty salon. Its sole de jure director was the respondent. The first applicant liquidator sought relief on the basis that the respondent had breached her duties owed to the company. The court held, among other things, that the respondent was ... View
Re Changtel Solutions UK Ltd (In Liquidation) and others v G4S Secure (1 April 2022)
The Chancery Division held that the applicant company and its liquidators (together, the applicants) succeeded in their application against sixteen respondents, seeking to recover various sums allegedly paid by the company to them in the period between the presentation of a winding up petition against the company in June 2013 and the making of a winding up order against it in January 2015. The court held that, among other things, the respondent had not established any... View
The Chancery Division held that the applicant company and its liquidators (together, the applicants) succeeded in their application against sixteen respondents, seeking to recover various sums allegedly paid by the company to them in the period between the presentation of a winding up petition against the company in June 2013 and the making of a winding up order against it in January 2015. The court held that, among other things, the respondent had not established any... View
Re Al Saud v Mobile Telecommunications Company KSCP (31 March 2022)
The Chancery Division dismissed the appellant debtor's appeal against the judge's order to refuse his application to set aside permission to serve a bankruptcy petition out of jurisdiction, which had been granted to the respondent creditor, ex parte, by a previous judge. The creditor had relied on s 265(2)(b)(i) of the Insolvency Act 1986 as grounds of jurisdiction to serve a creditor's bankruptcy petition, contending that, at a time within the three years prior to the petition, the debtor had had a place of residence in England and Wales. The debtor had argued that the judge had applied the incorrect test and criteria in upholding permission to serve out of jurisdiction on that ground. The court held... View
The Chancery Division dismissed the appellant debtor's appeal against the judge's order to refuse his application to set aside permission to serve a bankruptcy petition out of jurisdiction, which had been granted to the respondent creditor, ex parte, by a previous judge. The creditor had relied on s 265(2)(b)(i) of the Insolvency Act 1986 as grounds of jurisdiction to serve a creditor's bankruptcy petition, contending that, at a time within the three years prior to the petition, the debtor had had a place of residence in England and Wales. The debtor had argued that the judge had applied the incorrect test and criteria in upholding permission to serve out of jurisdiction on that ground. The court held... View
Further Information & Articles
Ben Luxford
Moira FitzpatrickFind 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.
