The case of Hull v Campbell serves as a reminder of an outmoded debt recovery procedure that needs to be modernised.

Section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 has the potential to mean that, as a result of corporate restructuring (including on employee and TUPE transfers), an employer that participates in a defined benefit occupational pension scheme could have to make a one-off payment (a debt) to the scheme. The debt reflects the difference between the scheme funds that are available and the estimated cost of securing all scheme benefits in the form of annuity policies.

From 1 January 2011 the Insolvency Service has put the following changes into effect:

The Official Receiver (OR), as trustee of the bankruptcy estate, will no longer dispose of a bankrupt’s interest in a family home until two years and three months after the bankruptcy order is made, except if an offer is received which is in the creditors’ interests to accept.

At two years and three months a review will begin. In cases where the bankrupt’s interest in the property is valued at less than £1,000, steps will be taken to revest the property interest in the bankrupt.

When an employer leaves a multi-employer defined benefit pension scheme, an employer debt - a section 75 debt - may arise if the scheme was underfunded.

A section 75 debt is a debt due from an employer in a multi-employer defined benefit pension scheme to the trustees of the scheme.

CMS Cameron McKenna has learned that Registrars at the Companies Court in London have indicated that they now require applications for the extension of an administration to be issued at least 6 weeks before the administration is due to expire, unless there are "unusual reasons" justifying a later application. It is not yet clear what "unusual reasons" might mean in practice.

Rainy Sky SA et al v Kookmin Bank [2010] All ER (D) 255 (May) In our Spring 2010 e-news we reported on the case of Kookmin Bank which dealt with the interpretation of a refund guarantee between Kookmin Bank (the “Bank”) and the customer of an insolvent shipyard. The Bank issued a refund guarantee to secure obligations assumed by its customer Jinse Shipbuilding (the “Builder”). The agreement required the Bank to repay on demand all of the instalments paid by the buyer, Rainy Sky, on the occurrence of a default event under the refund guarantee.

Section 113 of the Housing Grants, Construction & Regeneration Act 1996 (the 1996 Act) outlaws pay when paid provisions, with one exception. It is permissible for a Contractor to use a pay when paid provision to deny payment of outstanding amounts due to its Sub-contractor where the Client at the top of the supply chain has gone bust. The general consensus is of course that this exception is unfair. It is essentially asking the Sub-contractors to act as insurers of both the main Contractor and Client insolvency.

A late October 2010 case Straw Realisations v Shaftsbury House illustrates the courts’ approach to technical and insolvency-based challenges regarding enforcement of adjudicators’ awards. Given the current spate of contractor insolvencies and popularity of adjudication, any trust facing an adverse adjudicator's decision in favour of its contractor should not pay without due consideration.

On 21 January, the Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”) announced that it would carry out a market study, supported by Ofwat, the UK water and sewerage regulator, looking at the market for treatment of organic waste. The study will look at whether the market is working effectively to deliver the best outcomes for customers. The OFT decided to launch this study after considering a proposal and request from Ofwat. The OFT will lead on the study and utilise its experience in conducting market studies and of the municipal, commercial and industrial organic waste sectors.