‘Covid 19 has already had a tragic impact upon the health of many in the UK. One notable other consequence however, has been the impact upon the British economy.’
Parklane Plowden, 3rd April 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘In a judgment handed down by Snowden J on a bank holiday on 13 April 2020 in the matter of Carluccio’s Limited (in administration) [2020] EWHC 886 (Ch), we have the first decision regarding the application of the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (“the Scheme”). The Scheme allows employers to claim for 80% of an employee’s salary (up to a maximum of £2500 per month) if staff are kept on the books doing no work (furloughed) rather than dismissed as redundant.’
Parklane Plowden, 16th April 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘On 6th April 2020 the TIPD came into force. It implements a number of changes and supplements to the Practice Direction – Insolvency Proceedings July 2018. The purpose is to avoid, where possible, parties attending court in person and the likely disruption in proceedings as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.’
Park Square Barristers, 8th April 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘On Easter Monday, 13 April 2020, the High Court (Snowden J presiding) handed down its judgment in the matter of Carluccio’s Limited (in administration) [2020] EWHC 886 (Ch). To add to the Easter joy, the furlough guidance was amended on 9 April 2020 and the judgment had to embrace the amended guidance. One of the clarifying amendments on 9 April was the confirmation that employees who transfer under TUPE after 28 February 2020 may be placed, or continue, on furlough. This has practical implications in the light of this judgment.’
Littleton Chambers, 14th April 2020
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Snowden J gives urgently sought directions to administrators in respect of furlough arrangements with employees following a remote video hearing in the matter of Carluccio’s Limited (in administration) [2020] EWHC 886 (Ch).’
Exchange Chambers, 15th April 2020
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘The past year has seen repeated attempts by the courts to solve the conundrum of electronic working and how it interfaces with outof-court appointments of administrators. Six decisions, all conflicting in whole or in part, none likely to result in an appeal, did little to ease the uncertainty surrounding the validity of notices efiled outside court hours by CE-File. There was no substantive attempt at resolution on the part of the Companies Court or the Insolvency Rules Committee; the Chancellor issued guidance to the effect that notices filed out-of-hours would be referred to a designated High Court Judge.’
Radcliffe Chambers, 8th April 2020
Source: radcliffechambers.com
‘The High Court has rejected an application to adjourn a five-week trial of a £250m insolvency claim because of the coronavirus pandemic.’
Litigation Futures, 9th April 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Government has proposed imminent new insolvency rules with the aim of helping more businesses weather the COVID-19 storm and avoid entering an insolvency process. The overriding objective is to assist UK companies to keep trading whilst restructuring. The measures proposed to give this breathing space are set to include a suspension of the current wrongful trading provisions and a new moratorium for businesses undergoing a restructuring process.’
Radcliffe Chambers, 30th March 2020
Source: radcliffechambers.com
‘The directors of two care homes in the Midlands have been disqualified after they diverted council funds before abandoning elderly residents and staff, the Insolvency Services has revealed.’
Local Government Lawyer, 31st March 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘This article analyses the latest decision in the challenge to the company voluntary arrangement (CVA) entered into by Debenhams Retail Ltd (Debenhams) in 2019. Southampton Estates Ltd (Southampton) sought, pursuant to rule 12.59 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, that Sir Alastair Norris, sitting as a High Court judge, review and vary his earlier decision that the Debenhams CVA was valid and enforceable. Written by Kate Rogers, barrister, at Radcliffe Chambers.’
Radcliffe Chambers, 2nd March 2020
Source: radcliffechambers.com
‘When major financial institutions go to the wall the ensuing legal squabbles over the carcases often provide rich seams that can be mined to provide judicial clarification of the law for the benefit of all. The spectacular collapse of the Lehman Brothers empire is no exception and the latest chapter does not disappoint. In Lehman Brothers Australia Ltd (In Liquidation) v Macnamara & Ors (Joint Administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration)) [2020] EWCA Civ 321, the Court of Appeal (Patten, David Richards, Newey LJJ) has provided some timely and useful clarification on the correct test for the court to apply when considering the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to control its officers within the principle of Re Cordon, Ex p. James (1873-74) LR 9 Ch App 609 or through the more specifically targeted statutory provisions for such control, as for example those in para 74 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) with regard to administrators. In the present climate induced by Coronavirus (COVID-19), any clarity that makes the necessity of going to court less likely is to be doubly welcomed.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 17th March 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘In this article, we look at the recent decision in the ongoing and highly publicised divorce case of Akhmedova v Akhmedov. This decision is the latest in a long run of enforcement cases brought by the wife against her former husband, who, in 2016, was ordered to pay her one of the largest reported financial settlements in England. While the judge was critical of the husband’s reorganisation of his assets to put and keep them beyond the wife’s reach, this is not the end of the road for this case. This judgment is simply another stepping-stone towards the wife realising the award she is entitled to.’
Family Law, 11th March 2020
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘The High Court ruled that it is not permissible for a notice of appointment of administrators by the directors of a company to be e-filed out of court hours. The court ruled that the defect was curable and that the appointment took effect at the time the court opened for business the next working day. This judgment adds to the growing number of conflicting cases about the validity and time of the appointment when notices are e-filed out of hours.
OUT-LAW.com, 6th March 2020
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘In a judgment which disagreed with the recently reported decisions of Re Skeggs Beef Limited[2019] EWHC 2607 (Ch) and Re SJ Henderson and Co Ltd [2019] EWHC 2742 (Ch), HHJ Hodge QC sitting as a Judge of the High Court found:
1) Notices of Intention to Appoint Administrators (“NOI”) can be filed at any time via e-filing and take effect at the time they are filed via e-filing.
2) Directors or the Company can make out of hours appointments of Administrators by filing a Notice of Appointment (“NOA”) at any time via e-filing. The appointment will take effect at the time the documents are filed via e-filing.
3) That for the purposes of the computation of the period of 10 business days pursuant to para 28(2) of Sch.B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the first business day will be the business day after the date on which the NOI was filed – thus it is a ‘clear days’ calculation.’
Exchange Chambers, 20th February 2020
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘The newsletter features a series of reviews by our insolvency specialists, covering the latest major cases.’
New Square Chambers, 6th February 2020
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘The High Court has ruled that company directors cannot buy assets from their liquidated companies at below market value.’
Local Government Lawyer, 30th January 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘On an appeal against a determination of the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) as to the reasonableness and payability of service charges, the Upper Tribunal found that the FTT had erred in its construction of the residential leases.’
Tanfield Chambers, 21st January 2020
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Directors of insolvent companies should not be allowed to buy assets of the business on the cheap, the High Court has ruled. In Systems Building Services Group Limited [2020] EWHC 54 (Ch), the court this week ruled that a director is liable to pay the liquidators of his company money he saved by not placing a house owned by the company on the open market when the company went under.’
Law Society's Gazette, 22nd January 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The High Court has characterised a liquidator’s firm as a real party to the litigation which it funded as it stood to make financial gain from the action and was therefore found not to be a pure funder facilitating access to justice.’
OUT-LAW.com, 10th January 2020
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025