The Court of Appeal judgment in Crystal Palace FC Ltd v Kavanagh and others brings welcome news for administrators and businesses in administration. The Court of Appeal has overturned the EAT and held that the dismissals of some of the football club’s staff were made for an economic, technical or organisational (ETO) reason and so liability did not pass under TUPE to the new owners of the Club, making it easier for them to operate it as a going concern.

On 29 November 2011, the Court of Appeal ruled for the dismissal of appeals lodged by Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited (DSWC) and Bernard Freeman and Michael Sullivan, trading as Satellite Services (SS), in respect of winding-up orders previously secured by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) against these companies.

A recent Court of Appeal decision has criticised obiter comments made by the Supreme Court in Bresco v Lonsdale to the effect that adjudication decisions in favour of companies in liquidation could in certain circumstances, and with appropriate safeguards, be enforced by way of summary judgment. The Court of Appeal has indicated that such an approach would be at odds with the mandatory right of set-off arising under the Insolvency Rules. The Court of Appeal’s comments in this respect are themselves obiter and will give rise to uncertainty in this area of the law.

InTelnic Ltd v Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH [2020] EWHC 2075 (Ch), Sir Geoffrey Vos sitting in the English High Court ruled that where a debt is governed by an arbitration agreement, it is appropriate for the Court to stay or dismiss a winding up petition without investigating whether the debt is disputed in good faith and on substantial grounds.

This case provides guidance on the high threshold a creditor will have to cross in order to be able to present a winding up petition for sums due under an agreement with an arbitration clause.

Correct as of 16.00 on 24 March 2020. This article is being maintained.

The global COVID-19 outbreak is presenting businesses with unprecedented challenges. In the last two weeks the UK Government has announced a raft of COVID-19 liquidity and tax assistance measures for businesses and individuals.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled today that the Pension Protection Fund regime does not satisfy European law requirements. The judgment is likely to have a significant impact on the PPF, and could have wider knock-on effects for many occupational pension schemes.

Background to the case

Last year we reported on a decision of the Scottish Court of Session which suggested that greater leniency may apply to the interpretation of performance bonds in Scotland than in England (see our earlier Law-Now here). A further decision from the Court of Session issued last month would appear to support this trend.

Fife Council v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance plc

The amendments to the Insolvency Act 1986 will extend the protection of essential supplies on insolvency to most private utility suppliers. They will also extend protection to I.T. supplies, including data storage and processing and website hosting. Further protection is introduced where contracts are entered into from 1 October 2015, so that insolvency related terms which allow higher supply charges in the event of administration or company voluntary arrangement will be prohibited.

Why is the law changing?

The Court of Appeal gave judgment today (15 November 2013) in favour of licensed insolvency practitioner Andrew Hosking (D), unanimously upholding a strike out judgment of Peter Smith J made on 22 February 2013. 

Stephen Hunt, liquidator of Ovenden Colbert Printers Limited (“OCP”), had sued D and 8 other defendants.  His claim against D was brought pursuant to sections 238 and 241 Insolvency Act 1986.  He alleged that D had received or benefited from payments made by OCP which constituted transactions at an undervalue. 

The Court of Appeal has held in the recent case of Spaceright Europe Ltd v Baillavoine and another (2011) that a dismissal can be for “a reason connected with the transfer” under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”) even if there is no particular transfer or transferee in existence or contemplation at the time of the dismissal. In the case Mr Baillavoine, the Chief Executive of Ultralon Holdings Ltd (“Ultralon”), was dismissed on the day Ultralon was placed into administration.