This note updates a series of Tanner De Witt articles on the interaction between dispute resolution clauses and the Court’s insolvency jurisdiction. The previous articles are:

The landmark Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) decision of Re Guy Lam[1] has generated numerous articles written by practitioners and academics on the interaction between exclusive jurisdiction clauses and the court’s jurisdiction to wind up or bankrupt a debtor. Following the CFA’s decision, the Guy Lam bankruptcy continued to impact our legal landscape when the Court of Appeal handed down a novel decision on the treatment of the costs and expenses of the bankrupt trustees (for whom TDW acted) in circumstances where the bankruptcy order was overturned in appeal[2].

Where a bankruptcy order is set aside after a successful appeal by the debtor, who should be liable for the fees and expenses of the trustees in bankruptcy (whether the Official Receiver (as provisional trustee) or trustees appointed by the creditors)? Should such fees and expenses be borne by the bankruptcy estate, or should the unsuccessful petitioner bear those costs on the basis the bankruptcy order ought not to have been made in the first place?