Dixon v Radley House Partnership (A Firm) [2016] EWHC 2511 (TCC)
The claimant (D) brought negligence proceedings against the defendant (R) a firm of architects, for refurbishment works.
In the draft claim form, D had referred to a loss of £35,894.00 allegedly caused by negligent misrepresentation on the part of R, who had been instructed on 27 October 2007.
The draft claim form and the fee were prepared up to a value of £50,000.00 and were received by the court on 25 October 2013, less than six years after the cause of action arose.
The High Court has recently held that an individual may claim the proceeds of the sale of assets subject to an agricultural charge by the application of the equitable remedy of marshalling.
Agricultural Sector
Privy Council considers entitlement to costs of preparing to comply with a third party disclosure order
The Facts
In December 2015, Hart J heard (and refused) an application by Mr Golstein for revocation of a decision of 31 May 2012 passing a proposal by Mr Bishop to enter into an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA). Mr Golstein, who was claiming a sum of £122,000 from Mr Bishop, appealed the decision on the basis that his claim was not correctly admitted for voting purposes and that there was material non-disclosure by Mr Bishop which led to the passing of the IVA.
The Decision
Introduction
In BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2016] EWHC 1686 the High Court was recently asked to consider whether:
- payment of dividends contravened Part 23 of the Companies Act 2006;
- the decision to pay the dividends was a breach by the directors of their fiduciary duties towards the company; and
- the dividends were transactions defrauding creditors under Section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
On the Horizon
Welcome to the second edition of the On the Horizon newsletter - a regular update on upcoming cases and anticipated regulatory developments by the DLA Piper Banking and Finance Litigation team.
AUTUMN 2016
Cases to watch
First published on LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency
Barristers Stephen Atherton QC and Charlotte Tan of 20 Essex Street review Ronelp Marine Ltd and other companies v STX Offshore & Shipbuilding Co Ltd—in which the High Court considers whether, and the circumstances where, it should lift a stay made under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations SI 2006/1030 to allow litigation proceedings to be continued in England by a creditor with an unsecured monetary claim.
The Claim
Arjo Wiggins Appleton Limited (“AWA Limited”) was a wholly owned subsidiary of Sequana SA (the “Defendant”). BAT Industries Plc (“BAT Plc”), through a series of corporate acquisitions, became liable to pay for part of an environmental clean-up operation in the USA. AWA Limited was also liable to indemnify BAT Plc for part of that liability.
In December 2008, AWA Limited’s directors signed a solvency statement confirming that, in the opinion of the directors;
In Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in Administration) v Exxonmobil Financial Services BV(1) the High Court considered a range of issues arising from the application of the close-out provisions of the standard-form Global Master Repurchase Agreement (GMRA) 2000.
In Lomas and others v HMRC [2016] EWHC 2492 (Ch), the High Court has confirmed that statutory interest payable on insolvency is not 'yearly interest' for UK tax purposes. The administrators therefore had no obligation to account for income tax on the interest payments made. The Court was also critical of HMRC's contradictory guidance on this issue.
Background