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

The recent judgment in Phones 4U Ltd (in administration) v EE Ltd [2018] EWHC 49 (Comm) has highlighted the need for care when communicating the reasons for terminating a contract. In this case EE, as a result of failing to identify a repudiatory breach as the grounds for terminating its trading agreement with Phone 4U, was precluded from later pursuing a common law claim for damages.

Background

The expression “dilapidations” refers to any breach of lease covenants which relate to the condition of a leased property. This can apply to, among other things, a tenant’s covenants to repair the premises, to decorate or to remove alterations.

The process for ensuring that dilapidations are remedied usually takes place at the end of a lease, and any such dilapidations are commonly labelled “terminal” or “lease end” dilapidations. The procedure for determining liability can be complex and can potentially end up in Court.

The fallout from Carillion's collapse in January continues to play out as it transpired this week that the company had delayed payments to subcontractors by up to 120 days. Carillion allegedly used tactics such as faulting invoices and finding minor problems with work undertaken in order to delay payment.

As the nights drew in, the end of 2017 saw a flurry of case law on security for costs, and particularly its interaction with after the event (ATE) insurance and litigation funding. This article considers what insights can be gleaned for litigants who do not want to be left out in the cold.

Premier Motorauctions: security for costs and ATE

Briefings

A recent ruling by the English High Court in BILTA v RBS1, concerning EU Emissions Allowances (“EUAs” or “carbon-credits”) trading has re-opened the debate on when materials forming part of an internal investigation can benefit from litigation privilege. The decision further undermines the restrictive approach taken by Andrews J in SFO v ENRC2 when applying the “sole or dominant purpose test” to dual-purpose communications.

Background – Emissions Trading Fraud

Friendly societies, along with other mutual societies, are registered with and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 (the Act).