Any business owner will know the importance of consistent cash flow to the success of their business. On 1 October 2017, a new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims will come into force. The new Protocol will make the process of claiming debts from unwilling debtors slower and more onerous for creditors as a new mandatory process before a claim can be issued is required, with longer timescales. It also aims to avoid court proceedings wherever possible, firmly encouraging parties to engage in alternative forms of dispute resolution.

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 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.

On 2 March Cambridgeshire-based merchant WellGrain went into administration, reportedly owing at least £15m to almost 300 creditors, many of those being farmers.

The administrators' report has now been published and indicates that the unsecured creditors - including some 155 farmers - will expect to receive between 1.4 - 6.7 pence for every pound they are owed.

It is an announcement which will no doubt be met with dismay by those creditors. However, it is not unusual that unsecured creditors of an insolvent company will receive little or no payment.

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 procedure for an application to Court for the appointment of an Administrator pursuant to paragraph 12 of Schedule B1 IA 86 is covered by r3.3-3.15 of the 2016 rules.

Key points to note:

The procedure for Debt Relief Orders ("DRO") is unchanged, possibly because it is a comparatively new process having only come into force in 2009. However there has been some shuffling of rules numbers, in an effort to regularise and make the structure more logical.

Eligibility

To be granted a DRO, the debtor:

Section 216 continues to apply to prohibit the re-use of a name or sufficiently similar name where oldco and newco have common directors.

The relevant rules now dealing with the exceptions are contained in new rules 22.1 - 22.7.

The three exceptions remain broadly the same but there are some key differences to note.

Exceptions to the prohibition

The Appeals process is governed by Rules 12.59; 12.61 and Schedule 11. The old corresponding provisions were Rules 7.47 and 7.49A.

The major change to the provisions is that there is now clarification on appealing decisions made by District Judges. The new rules provide that these appeals will now lie either to a High Court Judge in a District Registry or a Registrar in Bankruptcy at the High Court. This was previously the case, but was only inserted into the old rules by way of an Amendment - they now come fully under the scope of the rules.

The out of Court appointment processes are broadly similar to the processes under the Insolvency Rules 1986 with some minor amendments. The most significant change is the abolition of the prescribed forms for appointment documents.

Whatever type of appointment (out of Court by company/directors, out of Court by Qualifying Floating Charge Holder ("QFCH"), application to Court), the Consent to Act form and contents is dealt with by r3.2.

Appointment out of Court by directors/the Company