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.

Key point

The Court is prepared to look at the overall nature of a directors conduct and dissect a complex series of transactions before concluding what (if any) insolvency failings have been committed by a director.

The Facts

Key points

The court has discretion to allow an insolvency practitioner to recover fees and costs from work done in realising assets for the benefit of a third party but it cannot be exercised where an insolvency practitioner takes action in relation to assets outside in the insolvency estate of his own accord.

The facts

Key Point

No recognition order was made where the main foreign insolvency proceedings had ended even where the plan agreed in those proceedings was in part still to be implemented.

The Facts

Key Point

An "establishment" requires business and business activity to be carried out involving dealings with third parties and not simply acts of internal administration.

Facts

Illegality, attribution of knowledge, and Stone & Rolls: Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited

On 22 April 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited¹, 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.

Key point

Pensions in payment were within the ambit of section 310(7) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the "Act"), but pensions not in payment were not payments to which a bankrupt was “entitled” as the right to draw had not been excerised. The court therefore refused to make an income payments order ("IPO").

The Facts

Key points

• Where main proceedings have been opened in one member state, secondary proceedings may be opened in another member state where the debtor has an establishment. The effects of the secondary proceedings shall be restricted to the assets in that territory.  
• Local law and court discretion may apply to the opening of secondary proceedings and may be exercised, but these should not be discriminatory.

The Facts

Key points

Agreements relating to costs in the course of their office could not be set aside by liquidators subsequently appointed.

The facts

Key points

The court has jurisdiction to order the UK Registrar of Companies to replace previously filed administrators' proposals.

The Facts

The administrators of a company filed a statement of proposals with the Registrar but then sought to replace the proposals because they contained information that the company was obliged to keep confidential. The administrators argued that: