The High Court has recently expressed concern that distressed borrowers are being duped into paying money to the anonymous promoters of schemes, which purport to protect them from enforcement by lenders but are actually ‘utterly misguided and spurious’.

There are a number of schemes being promoted at the moment that supposedly protect borrowers in arrears from enforcement by their lender.

The Court of Appeal in Harvey v Dunbar Assets plc [2017] EWCA Civ 60 has confirmed that parties cannot re-litigate failed arguments that have previously been presented in bankruptcy proceedings.

This will be welcome news for creditors in situations where debtors rehearse the same arguments at several stages of the bankruptcy process in an attempt to deter enforcement by driving up legal costs and drawing out proceedings.

The facts

Parties in the construction sector seeking to enforce an adjudicator’s decision against a

company with the benefit of a statutory moratorium were given fresh guidance in the recent case of South Coast Construction Ltd v Iverson Road Ltd [2017] EWHC 61.

Facts

In September 2013 Iverson Road Ltd (“Iverson”) engaged South Coast Construction Ltd (“SCC”) to complete various building works in London. In June 2016 SCC halted the work for non-payment of sums due by Iverson.

The Housing and Planning Act 2016 (the “Act”) introduces special administration procedures for social housing associations which aim to protect the level of social housing in the UK. The new housing administration orders (“HAOs”) create an additional objective for insolvency practitioners to try to keep social housing in the regulated housing sector to maintain levels of social housing.

Simple retention of title clauses are commonplace and generally effective in contracts for the sale of goods. However, extending their effect to the proceeds of sale of such goods requires careful drafting.

The Court of Appeal has provided some further clarity around the creation and effects of fiduciary obligations in relation to such clauses.[1]

Proceeds of sale clauses

Consumers could be set to jump up the insolvency hierarchy if Parliament backs the latest Law Commission recommendations.

The Law Commission’s report, Consumer Prepayments on Retailer Insolvency, recommends, among other things, that consumers who prepay for goods or services over £250 in the six months prior to a formal insolvency process should be paid out as preferential creditors instead of unsecured creditors.

The High Court has reiterated that cross-examination will not generally be permitted on an interlocutory application, or where there is no conflict of fact on the affidavits.

In McCarthy v Murphy,^[1] the defendant mortgagor was not permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff (a receiver) or a bank employee who swore a supporting affidavit.

Background

Two recent judgments have brought further clarity in relation to the rights acquirers of loan portfolios to enforce against borrowers:

In AIB Mortgage Bank -v- O'Toole & anor [2016] IEHC 368 the High Court determined that a bank was not prevented from relying on a mortgage as security for all sums due by the defendants, despite issuing a redemption statement which omitted this fact.

In order to understand this case, it is necessary to set out the chronology of events:

During contract negotiations parties usually agree what law and which courts will determine any disputes arising from that contract. This brings certainty for the parties. However that certainty can vanish if one party is a foreign registered company and becomes insolvent – the other party may suddenly become exposed to unexpected foreign insolvency law. At this point, the drafting of a jurisdiction clause can be worth millions.

This is the situation in the recent case of Global Maritime Investments Cyprus Limited v O.W. Supply & Trading A/S [2015] EWHC 2690 (Comm).