The court held in this case that a costs order in favour of the debtor, in respect of a discontinued bankruptcy petition for the same debt, due to the petitioner, could be set off against the sums due in respect of a second bankruptcy petition brought against the debtor by the same petitioner. The debtor had argued that the petition should be stayed until the previous costs order had been paid.

In this case the court considered a debtor’s application to set aside a bankruptcy order made in her absence (due to self-isolation in accordance with Covid-19 guidelines). It was held that the fact that the debtor was bankrupt meant she had no standing to apply to set the order aside. The court accepted that the debtor had a good reason not to attend court, and had acted promptly to set the order aside, however legal precedent going back to the 1990’s meant that only a trustee in bankruptcy could challenge the liability orders. 

This case was heard before CIGA came into force but the provisions of the CIG Bill were known. Statutory demands were served on 27 March 2020 on the company in respect of debts due under loan agreements and a winding up petition had been presented. The company applied for an injunction to restrain the advertisement of the petition, claiming that although it was insolvent it had been prevented from obtaining funding, to enable it to propose a scheme of arrangement to its unsecured creditors, as a result of the pandemic.

The joint liquidators of a company, which had been compulsorily wound up in England and Wales, sought orders under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA86”) for production of documents and an account of dealings with the company, in respect of companies in Italy. The question for the Court was whether s236 IA86 had extraterritorial effect. The problem for the court was that there was competing first instance decisions both for and against.

What have we been up to?

The days and nights may well be getting noticeably cooler, but as a team we remain very much at simmer point in terms of the demands of newlyacquired business support and insolvency work and staying on top of recent legislative changes.

Amongst this month's work highlights have been:

Despite what seemed like three months ago to be something only happening a very long way away, and would hopefully dissipate as quickly as it started, the Coronavirus pandemic has well and truly arrived on our shores.

Daily news reports are revealing the far-reaching effects of the outbreak, the likes of which have not been seen for generations. In what form, and to what extent, the health, financial and social implications will be in the aftermath of the pandemic remain an unknown quantity for us all.

The Court of Appeal has issued a welcome clarification of rules regulating the payment of dividends to shareholders in Global Corporate Ltd v Hale [2018] EWCA Civ 2618.

Facts

The case was appealed from the ruling of Judge Matthews in the High Court [2017] EWHC 2277 (Ch). At issue were several payments made by Powerstation UK Limited (the “Company”) to Mr Hale, who was a director and shareholder of the Company at the relevant times.