Applications to Set Aside a Statutory Demand

Set Aside Applications were previously governed by rules 6.4 and 6.5. They are now governed by Rules 10.4 and 10.5.

Rule 10.4 - Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand

In summary, Rule 10.4 provides that a debtor may, after having been served with a Statutory Demand, make an application to court to have it set aside.

The English Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal that a claim could be pursued in the English courts whilst the defendant was also subject to winding-up proceedings under Icelandic insolvency law.

This case concerns a Court of Appeal hearing following the collapse of the large Icelandic bank, Kaupthing Bank HF ("Kaupthing"), in 2008. Kaupthing was subject to a moratorium order made by the Icelandic courts in 2008 and a winding-up order in November 2010.

Registrar Baister overturned the adjudicator's decision in refusing to grant a Bankruptcy Order where the debtors COMI was an issue.

Mr Budniok, a German citizen who had recently moved to London, applied online for a Bankruptcy Order in England. After several requests for further information, the adjudicator was not satisfied Mr Budniok's centre of main interests ("COMI") was in England and as such refused the application. Mr Budniok appealed.

Changes to the Insolvency Act 1986 ("Act")

SBEEA 2015 makes a host of supplemental amendments to the Act, the general effect of which is remove references to creditors' meetings and replace them with the alternative decision processes.

As a consequence:

The High Court considers questions relating to the location of three companies' COMIs and an alleged "improper motive" regarding the appointment of administrators

(1) SIMON ROBERT THOMAS (2) ARRON KENDALL v (1) FROGMORE REAL ESTATE PARTNERS GP1 LTD (2) LINDA NICHOL (3) CHARLES SPARY (4) STUART JENKIN (5) NATIONWIDE BUILDING SOCIETY : (1) FROGMORE REAL ESTATE PARTNERS GP1 LTD (2) LINDA NICOL (3) CHARLES SPARY (4) STUART JENKIN v (1) SIMON ROBERT THOMAS (2) ARRON KENDALL (3) NATIONWIDE BUILDING SOCIETY sub noms (1) IN THE MATTER OF FREP (KNOWLE) LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) (2) IN THE MATTER OF FREP (ELLESMERE PORT) LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) (3) IN THE MATTER OF FREP (BELLE VALE) LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) [2017] EWHC 25 (Ch)

ENEFI Energiahatékonysági Nyrt v Directia Generala Regionala a Finantelor Publice Brasov (DGRFP) [2016] All ER (D) 110 (Nov)

The Court of Justice of the European Union ("ECJ") has handed down a notable judgment in the case of ENEFI Energiahatékonysági Nyrt v Directia Generala Regionala a Finantelor Publice Brasov (DGRFP) [2016] All ER (D) 110 (Nov), ruling that domestic laws governing forfeiture of a claim in insolvency proceedings apply to foreign creditors too.

ECJ decides that rights in rem should be interpreted in accordance with German law, despite insolvency proceedings having been opened in France

In the recent case of SCI Senior Home (in Administration) v Gemeinde Wedemark, Hannoversche Volksbank eG, the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down judgment on the question of whether a right in rem created under national law should be considered a "right in rem" for the purposes of Article 5 of the Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings (the "Insolvency Regulation").

In the recent case of SCI Senior Home (in Administration) v Gemeinde Wedemark, Hannoversche Volksbank eG, the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down judgment on the question of whether a right in rem created under national law should be considered a "right in rem" for the purposes of Article 5 of the Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings (the "Insolvency Regulation").

Background

PricewaterhouseCoopers sought to recover their costs in complying with disclosure orders obtained by the Liquidators of Saad Investments Co Ltd and Singularis Holdings Ltd. The disclosure orders were ultimately set aside but the costs appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeal of Bermuda.