Directors against whom claims for a misfeasance have been intimated often turn to limitation and set off in defence of a request for the repayment or restoration of the relevant sums or property.
Misfeasance and limitation
Tiuta International Ltd (In Liquidation) v De Villiers Surveyors Ltd [2017] UKSC 77
Overview
Summary: In Wright (and another) (as joint liquidators of SHB Realisations Ltd (formerly BHS Ltd) (in liquidation)) v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd, the court held that, when the BHS CVA terminated, the landlord was entitled to claim the full rent due under its lease. With more recent CVAs seeking to push the envelope even further, is the continued compromise of landlord creditors post-CVA the next issue to be tested in the courts?
VE Vegas Investors IV LLC and others vs Shinners and others [2018] EWHC 186 Ch
Background
The applicants were creditors of VE Interactive Limited (In administration) (“VE”). VE encountered financial difficulties and its directors sought insolvency advice from insolvency practitioners at Smith and Williamson (“S&W”) and appointed them to advise on and effect a pre-pack sale of VE’s business and assets.
In the recent case of Reynard v Fox, the High Court struck out a claim brought by a litigant in person and cited the recent Supreme Court decision in Barton v Wright Hassall.
The court rejected the claimant's submission that this would be unjust because as a litigant in person, he did not have a detailed knowledge of the insolvency regulations. It ruled that the relevant regulations were not hard to find, difficult to understand or ambiguous.
Background
The insolvency of Carillion has placed into sharp relief the difficulties faced by those both up and down the contractual chain for a construction project when one part of that chain becomes insolvent and the ultimate supplier of goods and materials on site has not been paid.
There was a magical place that’s now in administration. It’s called ‘Toys R Us’, Toys R Us’, Toys R Us’.
Key points
Care should be taken to ensure that finance documents clearly and specifically set out the intention of the parties.
Lenders should ensure that charges created in security documents are not invalidated or altered by provisions of other finance documents.
Facts
In January 2018 the English High Court considered whether it had jurisdiction under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR) to extend a temporary stay on the commencement of enforcement action in respect of English law debt obligations owed by a foreign debtor so that in effect the stay became permanent, or whether such a permanent stay would breach the long established rule in Gibbs[1](whic