HM Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) has issued a consultation entitled “Tax Abuse and Insolvency: A Discussion Document” on how it proposes to confront those who misuse insolvency law as a means of avoiding or evading their tax liabilities.

A recent decision of the High Court (Goel and another v Grant and another [2017] EWHC 2688 (Ch)) has provided a useful reminder that care must be taken when administrators enter into pre-contract negotiations and the risk of inadvertently entering into a binding contract before terms are finalised. It also deals with the risks of disposing of assets, even those that are difficult to value, without due process.

The Facts

An out-of-hours office appointment of an administrator, although not unusual, is not a regular occurrence in the world of insolvency. It is however, exactly what happened at 4am on Monday 2 October, as Britain’s longest surviving airline brand ‘Monarch’ entered administration. The collapse of the airline comes as a result of mounting cost pressures in an increasingly competitive market and is the third European airline insolvency in 2017, following Air Berlin and Alitalia.

Following a suite of recent reforms to Australian insolvency laws, liquidators are now able to assign rights to sue, conferred on them personally by the Corporations Act. The new power to assign is broad. It appears that the implications of the power will need to be clarified by the judiciary before they are fully understood.

In this article, we look at the issues that arise from these legislative amendments along with the opportunities created.

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Saw (SW) 2010 Ltd and another v Wilson and others (as joint administrators of Property Edge Lettings Ltd) is the first case to address the effect of automatic crystallisation of an earlier floating charge upon a later floating charge.

The reforms introducing a safe harbour for directors of insolvent companies and, from 1 July 2018, a limited stay on the operation of ipso facto clauses have been passed by both Houses of the Australian Parliament and will likely be enacted by month end. Late on Monday evening, after some debate, the Senate passed the reforms with only minor amendments. The Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 then returned to the House of Representatives who formally passed the amended Bill last night.

Safe harbour

The recent case ofCrumper v Candey Ltd [2017] EWCH 1511 (Ch) delivered an updated analysis of the operation of section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“s245”). Although the insolvency proceedings (and much of the litigation before and after the insolvency commenced) originated in the British Virgin Islands, they were recognised in England and Wales under the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006.

The Senate Economics Legislation Committee has strongly recommended that the Australian Parliament pass the reforms to Australia's safe harbour and ipso facto regime currently before the Senate. As the reforms have already passed through the House of Representatives, this means that as early as the end of August 2017, in prescribed circumstances, directors could be entitled to a safe harbour from personal liability for insolvent trading claims.

Safe harbour

When reviewing a security for costs application under CPR 25.12, the courts are faced with the challenge of striking a balance between an impecunious claimant’s access to justice and the possibility of a successful defendant being unable to recover their costs. This is because the general rule in relation to costs under CPR 44.2 is that the unsuccessful party will pay the costs of the successful party.

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