In our June seminars we discussed the Pre-Pack Pool and the proposed changes to SIP 16. The revision was recommended by Teresa Graham as part of her independent review into pre-packs in June 2014, and the new SIP 16 was introduced on 2 November 2015 to coincide with the launch of the Pre-Pack Pool.

Key provisions of the revised SIP 16, which remains virtually unchanged from the draft issued in January this year, include:

The English High Court has for the first time directly addressed the question of the extra-territorial application of s233 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The Official Receiver as Liquidator of Sahaviriya Streel Industries UK Ltd sought an order to restore access to an IT system provided to the Company by its parent company in Thailand. In granting permission to the Official Receiver to serve the application out of the jurisdiction, the Court was persuaded by the reasoning in the recent cases of Jetivia and Re Paramount Airways which concerned other provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986.

The costs of presenting a bankruptcy or winding up petition in the UK have increased from 16 November 2015, under the Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2015. The Official Receiver's deposit, which is paid to the Insolvency Service to cover a proportion of the OR's fees in the event a Bankruptcy Order or Winding Up Order is made, will rise for creditors' bankruptcy petitions from £750 to £825 and for compulsory winding up petitions from £1,250 to £1,350. The deposit will remain unchanged for debtor's own bankruptcy petitions.

Key Points

• Court considers the ownership of assets situated at premises owned by the bankrupt in the context of limited relevant evidence
• Court emphasises the importance of joining the correct parties to litigation

The Facts

One of the changes introduced by the Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (“SBEE”) which came into force on 1 October 2015 was to allow administrators and liquidators the right to assign their rights of action in respect of fraudulent trading claims, wrongful trading claims, transactions at an undervalue, preferences and extortionate credit transactions.

On 22 April 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited, unanimously holding that where a company has been the victim of wrong-doing by its directors, that wrong-doing should not be attributed to the company so as to afford the directors an illegality defence.

The result is clear and not a surprising one. The judgments are less clear however. The Court highlighted the difficulties in developing illegality principles of general application for future cases, but then decided now was not the time to try.

October 2016 will see the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 finally brought into force. Although five years since it passed through Parliament, the act has never received Royal Assent due to a number of practical hurdles.

charlesrussellspeechlys.com Charles Russell Speechlys LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales, registered number OC311850, and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Charles Russell Speechlys LLP is also licensed by the Qatar Financial Centre Authority in respect of its branch office in Doha. Any reference to a partner in relation to Charles Russell Speechlys LLP is to a member of Charles Russell Speechlys LLP or an employee with equivalent standing and qualifications.

Here the Court of Appeal granted an injunction which restrained a building contractor (Harbour View) from presenting a winding-up petition, overturning the high court's decision at first instance.  Harbour View had been engaged under two separate contracts based on a JCT Intermediate WCD (2011) to carry out works at two separate sites.  The employer (Wilson) failed to pay against two interim certificates (August 2013 and September 2013), leaving a sum of over GBP 1.6 million owing.

The High Court has recently considered whether directors were in breach of their duties after a company entered insolvency. Specifically, the Court considered whether it could exercise its discretion in accordance with section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986, whereby the Court can order summary judgment against an officer of the company who has misapplied, retained or become accountable for money or property of the company, or been guilty of any misfeasance or breach of fiduciary or other duty in relation to the company.

The Claim