‘A judge has condemned the London arm of a US law firm for sending a “disgraceful” letter to a competitor of one of its clients.’
Legal Futures, 25th November 2024
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A well-known sports law firm has failed to convince the High Court to restrain a litigation funder from advertising a winding-up petition over a loan it has not repaid.’
Legal Futures, 28th October 2024
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd [2024] UKPC 16 (“Sian”) has, in part, overruled, Salford Estates (No.2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1575; [2015] BCC 306 (“Salford Estates”). The part overruled is in respect to section 122(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 and whether the Companies Court can, on a creditors winding up petition, determine whether or not the petition debt is genuinely disputed on substantial grounds. Salford Estates was not overruled in respect to whether section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 applies to creditors winding up petitions.’
33 Bedford Row, 1st August 2024
Source: www.33bedfordrow.co.uk
‘A recent ruling of the English High Court found that a genuine attempt to restructure a company did not amount to an ‘informal winding-up’ in contradiction of insolvency laws on the distribution of assets to creditors.’
OUT-LAW.com, 20th June 2023
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The High Court upheld an application made by the liquidator of JD Group Ltd (“the company”) claiming that Deepak Bhatia, the company director, was engaged in fraudulent trading owing to knowledge that the company was associated with VAT fraud. Judge Agnello QC found that the manner in which the respective transactions were carried out provided clear evidence of this knowledge and that Bhatia’s conduct was dishonest in accordance with the objective standards of ordinary decent people.’
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd March 2022
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The court may order a stay of a claim pursuant to CPR 3.1(2)(f) where the claimant has previously been ordered to pay the defendant sums in satisfaction of an adjudicator’s decision and the claimant has not done so. That power is exercised, in part, with the “pay now argue later” ethos of the Construction Act 1996 in mind. The key decisions to date (which I discuss below) balance a party’s rights of access to the court against those broader policy objectives. This post looks at a case in which the TCC applied and expanded the case law in this area, RHP Merchants and Construction Ltd v Treforest Property Co Ltd.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 2nd February 2022
‘Where a creditors’ winding up petition is presented and the petitioner seeks a winding up order under section 122(1)(f) of the Insolvency Act 1986, and the debtor/respondent company does not resist or its points of defence/opposition prove unmeritorious, the petitioner will be entitled to a winding up order as of right (in Latin, ex debito justitiae). However, this “as of right” entitlement only relates to the relationship between the petitioner and the debtor/respondent (‘debtor’). Where the debtor has only one creditor, i.e. the petitioning creditor, there will be no other, wider interests, to consider (leaving aside the rare intrusion of contributories’ interests). However, where the debtor has other creditors, those other creditors may wish[5] for their voices to be heard as to whether the Companies Court should, under section 125 of the Insolvency Act 1986: (i) make the winding up order; (ii) dismiss the petition; or (iii) make some other order, for instance, to adjourn/stay the winding up petition pending some other event (e.g. a vote on an creditors voluntary arrangement proposal).’
33 Bedford Row, 1st August 2021
Source: www.33bedfordrow.co.uk
‘In its Judgment handed down on 12 October 2020, [[2020] UKPC 24], the Privy Council, comprised of Lord Hodge, Lord Briggs, Lady Arden, Lord Leggatt and Lord Burrows, provided a welcomed clarification of the law applicable to the just and equitable winding-up of a company; with a particular emphasis on the alternative rules which apply to those companies having the status of a quasi-partnership.’
Exchange Chambers, 16th October 2020
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘The economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic are putting incredible pressures on companies of all kinds and sizes. The UK Government has been at pains to signal its support for business during the COVID-19 pandemic, most notably the furloughing scheme and company loans announced by the Chancellor, and further announcements by the Business Secretary seeking to reduce the burden on businesses and keep companies running.’
3 Hare Court, 11th May 2020
Source: www.3harecourt.com
‘The High Court has thrown out a case against two councils brought by the director of a company already subject to a general civil restraint order and who made a “bizarre” suggestion to a judge.’
Local Government Lawyer, 30th April 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Commercial property landlords in the UK have been temporarily banned from taking legal action against tenants who have not paid their rent, to protect retailers and other businesses from “aggressive rent collection” during the coronavirus crisis.’
The Guardian, 23rd April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Coronavirus has affected both the functioning of businesses and the Courts. In these unprecedented times, how are the Courts dealing with the hearings of winding up petitions?’
3 Hare Court, 14th April 2020
Source: www.3harecourt.com
‘While in previous weeks the winding up petition list has been adjourned for a minimum of three months, this week’s list was successfully conducted by Skype. This article discusses how the hearings worked.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 2nd April 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘Widespread knowledge that a company is subject to a creditor’s winding up petition can cause that company serious harm. Where the creditor’s winding up petition is warranted, this harm may just be an unfortunate consequence of a valid legal process being pursued against it. However, where the creditor’s winding up petition is unwarranted, and is eventually dismissed because it is unwarranted, its dismissal will be ‘cold comfort’ to the company where, in the intervening period between presentation and dismissal, the company has suffered irreparable reputational and operational damage.’
33 Bedford Row, 4th February 2020
Source: www.33bedfordrow.co.uk
‘The Companies Court heard on Wednesday that Bury and their owner, Steve Dale, had settled an outstanding debt with HM Revenue & Customs. The winding-up petition was dismissed by Judge Sally Barber, with the club instructed to pay costs.’
The Guardian, 18th December 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Where a winding up petition is pending against a company, the company is able to enter into administration under Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (‘Schedule B1’), either through the court making an administration order in respect to the company, or through an appointment under paragraph 14 to Schedule B1 (where no provisional liquidator has been appointed and no administrative receiver is in office). When the company does enter administration, the pending winding up petition is affected.’
33 Bedford Row, 4th November 2019
Source: www.33bedfordrow.co.uk
‘The recent case of Sell Your Car With Us Ltd v Anil Sareen will be of interest to practitioners in Corporate Insolvency as it provides a useful reminder that there is no strict rule that the winding up procedure is inapt for mere debt collection.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 7th October 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘Imagine a company has been dishonestly asset-stripped by one of its directors. The assets have gone into his own pocket. The company is wound up. The shareholders and creditors have little hope of recovering much from it. The obvious next step is to pursue the director. But the shareholders cannot recover the loss in value of their shareholding against him; that claim is barred by the rule against reflective loss. Is a claim by an unsecured creditor who is not a shareholder similarly barred? In Garcia v Marex Financial Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 1468, the Court of Appeal held that it was.’
Henderson Chambers, 6th December 2018
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘A law firm’s decision to terminate its retainer without notice to the client – because it was closing down – was unreasonable and it could not claim the fees due before then, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 31st October 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In Victory House General Partner Ltd, Re A Company [2018] EWHC 1143 (Ch), the court dismissed a party’s winding-up petition as the employer’s cross-claim was bona fide and the debt was disputed on substantial grounds.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 22nd June 2018
© Inner Temple Library 2024