The only certainty following the referendum is that exiting the EU will substantially alter the legal landscape from a recovery and insolvency viewpoint.

Over the past few years the various EU members have been working hard to eradicate or minimise inconsistencies between the individual regulations which have led to not only confusion but also “forum shopping” by those facing insolvency. The idea is to provide a level playing field so that businesses in particular knew where they stood should a company in another country get into trouble.

Following the referendum outcome Andrew Tate, president of R3 (the Association of Business Recovery Professionals), has stated that “there is clearly going to be a period of huge economic uncertainty” and has requested that all members (Insolvency Practitioners, lawyers and advisors) “step up to help businesses and individuals”.

The Insolvency Service tweeted on 27 July 2016 with some satisfaction that last year it disqualified 1,208 directors for unfit conduct.

Our economy is reliant upon business people and entrepreneurs taking risks and trying new enterprises and the insolvency and rescue culture is there to support that but there must also be an appreciation that there is a difference between bad luck, bad management and bad behaviour.

Does the Insolvency Service differentiate on this?

The recent case of Re Ralls Builders Limited has confirmed that in circumstances where the company is heading for liquidation directors cannot escape a wrongful trading claim by ignoring individual creditors. It emphasises the importance of taking the correct legal advice at an early stage.