In Fenland District Council v Sheppard and others, FDC had spent £72,000 making a derelict property safe, which by the hearing date was worth less than half that amount. FDC registered the property improvements as an interest in the property, (indisputably) in priority to the prior mortgagee.

When the property's owner was adjudicated bankrupt, the bankrupt's trustee disclaimed the property (under a provision similar to section 117 of the NZ Insolvency Act). FDC sought to have the property vested in it, on the condition that the mortgagee's charge be removed.

In our October update, we reported on the Court of Appeal decision in Grant v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (see here).  The Supreme Court has now declined leave to appeal from that decision.

Recent decisions from the courts have raised the legal risk for directors and underlined the exposure to third party liability of auditors, trustees and promoters. 

As a result, we can probably expect this year to have more claims made by receivers, liquidators and out-of-pocket investors against those involved in:

The Insolvency Practitioners Bill is now unlikely to come into force until early 2013 due to the disruption caused by the election.  The Finance and Expenditure Select Committee’s report on the Taxation (Annual Rates, Returns Filing, and Remedial Matters) Bill will also be delayed until next year.

Insolvency Practitioners Bill

A recent Court of Appeal decision (Clark v Libra Developments Ltd [2011] NZCA 493), provides a useful guide to the general principles which apply to partners who do not have a formal agreement in place governing the dissolution of their partnership.

Receivers cannot escape personal liability on contracts they cause the company to enter into simply because all of the company’s assets have been paid out.

So the Court of Appeal found last week in a decision which explored the application of limitation of liability clauses where, as is common practice, the liability is limited to the “available assets” of the company.

The Supreme Court has affirmed the Court of Appeal’s finding in August of this year that a voluntary administrator may only use a casting vote at a watershed meeting where the number of creditors voting for and against a proposed deed of company arrangement (DOCA) is equal.

In Stockco Ltd v Denize the applicants sought an order to set aside bankruptcy notices on the ground that the creditor had not complied with High Court Rule 24.8(3).  That Rule requires that a certified copy of the judgment or order on which the bankruptcy notice is based must be attached to the bankruptcy notice.  The applicants claimed that the notice was defective as it was served separately from copies of the judgment.

The Court of Appeal has affirmed the High Court’s ruling that a voluntary administrator may only use a casting vote where the number of creditors voting for and against the resolution is equal. 

The second limb of the test, that the 50% represent at least 75% in value, cannot be the subject of the casting vote.  Nor can the casting vote be used to choose between the number and the value.

In the High Court decision of Herbert v Allied Nationwide Finance Limited & Others, the Court declined to approve a creditor's proposal under the Insolvency Act 2006 on the grounds that the terms were not reasonable and not calculated to benefit the general body of creditors.