The Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2013 (“the Act”) has been enacted. The Act addresses the unintended consequences arising from the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 (“the 2009 Act”).

Summary

In In re Kerr Aluminium Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) [2012] IEHC 386, the High Court dismissed an application by a liquidator that certain payments made by the company in favour of Bank of Ireland be deemed a fraudulent preference within the meaning of section 286 of the Companies Act 1963. The decision is a further reminder of the challenges liquidators face in establishing a dominant intention to prefer one creditor over another in fraudulent preference applications.

Since July 2011, lenders have lived with great uncertainty as to their statutory rights, particularly their right to obtain possession of a secured property by way of summary proceedings. This uncertainty arose as a result of the 2011 High Court decision in Start Mortgages Limited & Ors v Gunn and Ors[1] (the “Start Mortgages Case”).

The Irish Examiner publication is the latest business to be restructured using a so called pre-pack insolvency transaction. “Pre-pack” transactions have been a feature of insolvency sales in other countries such as England and Wales for some years, but until relatively recently had not commonly featured in Irish insolvencies.  It has been reported that at least one creditor has initiated proceedings to challenge the Irish Examiner transaction.

The Personal Insolvency Act 2012 was signed into law on 26 December 2012. The Act provides for the introduction of three new non-judicial debt settlement arrangements and reforms to the current bankruptcy legislation.

The high profile liquidation of Custom House Capital Limited (In Liquidation) continued in 2012. Following a successful exercise to reconcile and confirm the position regarding certain client assets, the liquidator of the company proposed applying a fee of 0.5% when transferring the assets to clients to cover the costs of the reconciliation exercise.

Amantiss Enterprises Limited and Wilbury Limited were placed into creditors’ voluntary liquidation in 1994. Following the appointment of a liquidator, proceedings were issued by the two companies, together with a third company, Framus Limited, against a multitude of defendants including CRH plc, Readymix plc and Kilsaran Concrete Products Limited, alleging breaches of competition law.

In two cases decided towards the end of 2012, the High Court applied reductions to the hourly charge out rate of staff members employed by the liquidator who had been promoted during the course of the liquidation.

The High Court has recently held that a former employee of a construction company, which was in liquidation, had no reasonable cause of action against the company’s insurer. This was despite the fact that he had obtained judgment for negligence against the employer and the insurance policy covered the employer for such a claim in negligence.

1.     Overview