‘Two former directors of the collapsed department store chain BHS have been ordered to pay at least £18m after the pair were found liable for wrongful trading and breaching their corporate duties.’
The Guardian, 11th June 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
“The Brake v Axnoller litigation reaches the Court of Appeal again, this time on the unlawful eviction claim concerning the cottage, which the Brakes had lost at first instance. In what is the stamp of this sprawling array of litigation, there are some deeply recherché issues of law. In a development that is less common, the Brakes partly won – though what the significance of this is remains deeply unclear.”
Nearly Legal, 16th October 2022
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘On 19 January 2022, the Supreme Court heard the appeal in Stanford International Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) v HSBC Bank Plc. The appeal turns on whether a company in liquidation can be considered to have suffered loss where, while it is still trading, its bank pays money out of the company’s accounts to discharge debts owed by the company. It is likely that this case will further set out the limits of the Quincecare duty, following a spate of recent high-profile cases in this area.’
UKSC Blog, 26th April 2022
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The High Court of England and Wales has dismissed a claim brought by the liquidators of One Blackfriars Limited against its former joint administrators over the sale of the company’s main asset, a development site in Blackfriars, London.’
OUT-LAW.com, 15th April 2021
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘Time flies when you are having fun, or so the saying goes. I think it flies whether you are having fun or not, although I’m sure we’ve all experienced those moments when it isn’t flying at all and it feels like it has stood still. As Pink Floyd famously sang, “Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day”. You may wonder why I am talking about time. Well, it’s because of the events leading up to Fraser J’s judgment in John Doyle Contractors Ltd v Erith Contractors Ltd. They are all to do with time.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 29th September 2020
‘In Carillion v KPMG, the liquidators of this once substantial company sought pre-action disclosure from its former auditors. They intend to bring professional negligence proceedings for not detecting that the financial statements were unreliable. The Commercial Court refused the application. One might think that given auditors’ negligence claims in large part turn on professional judgment as to the audit procedures performed, the evidence obtained and the conclusions drawn, clear sight of the materials produced and relied on by the auditors would enable better focussed pleadings. Nonetheless the Commercial Court refused the application (which had admittedly spun into a substantial hearing with apparently more than £500,000 costs on each side). It pointed out that generally such applications were unlikely to succeed in Commercial Court cases and on the facts was not appropriate. The Judge seems to have been most impressed by the fact that Carillion had been able to articulate a detailed case in negligence already, rendering pre-action disclosure perhaps redundant and likely to be duplicated when it came to conventional disclosure.’
Hailsham Chambers, June 2020
Source: www.hailshamchambers.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
‘This judgment is an important one. It concerned an application by the joint liquidators of Comet (formerly joint administrators) for directions permitting them not to carry out any further investigation into the validity of the fixed and floating charge held by a single purpose vehicle (“HAL”) that had been granted by Comet under a year before it collapsed into administration. The joint liquidators also sought a direction that they be permitted to transfer a further tranche of funds to HAL that had been realised in the administration.’
Wilberforce Chambers, 5th February 2020
Source: www.wilberforce.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
‘Summer 2018 will be remembered as a special time by many readers of this blog: whether it was the spectacular weather, the giddy heights hit by the England football team, or Fraser J’s decision in Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd v Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (In Liquidation), it was a summer to remember.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 6th February 2019
‘Companies and lawyers must be clear and unambiguous when drafting settlement agreements, a court ruling has reminded them. A liquidator had to drop some claims after a court used correspondence to clarify exactly what was meant by the phrase “whole of the claim” in a compromise agreement. The ruling does not affect the liquidator’s claim against another person because she was not mentioned in the correspondence.’
OUT-LAW.com, 5th June 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘It is up to the directors of an insolvent company to prove that they took “every step” to minimise the potential loss to creditors as soon as they knew that the company could not reasonably avoid liquidation, the High Court has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th August 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In an important judgment handed down recently by the Court of First Instance in Hong Kong, the companies judge has ruled on the ambit of the power to order a person to produce documents to a provisional liquidator pursuant to section 221(3) of the Companies (Winding-Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance.(1) For now and pending any appeal, the judgment confirms that the scope of documents “relating to the company” that have to be produced to a liquidator (pursuant to section 221(3) of the Ordinance) is narrower than the matters in respect of which a person can be examined on oath concerning the “affairs of the company” (sections 221(1) and (2)). In so doing, the judgment gives a more literal interpretation of the power to order production pursuant to section 221(3) without reference to section 221(1).’
RPC Commercial Disputes Blog,
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
‘The undertaking in damages given on the appointment of a provisional liquidator did not automatically terminate on the making of a winding up order so as to deprive the court of jurisdiction to enforce the undertaking by ordering an inquiry as to damages.’
WLR Daily, 6th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘While most jurisdictions provide liquidators with wide investigative powers to locate and realise assets locally, the exercise of such powers becomes more complicated when the assets are situated overseas. As more and more businesses expand globally and corporate structures become equally more complex, the liquidators’ task becomes more problematic in winding up such companies.’
RPC Commercial Disputes Blog,
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
Krys and another v Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds [2014] UKPC 41; [2014] WLR (D) 516
‘There is no principle in insolvency proceedings which prevents an anti-suit injunction being made against a foreign creditor so as to restrain him from resorting to the courts of his own country. A creditor may not seek or enforce an order from a foreign court which will result in his enjoying prior access to any part of the insolvent estate.’
WLR Daily, 26th November 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A recent decision by the UK’s highest court reinforces how important it is for litigants to succeed in the court of first instance as chances of success on appeal are getting slimmer an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 8th July 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024