Following the recent Supreme Court decision in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (In Liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd, it is clear that companies in liquidation have the right to adjudicate a dispute. However, a successful adjudication is only half the battle: the insolvent company must still persuade the court to enforce the decision.
It is an unfortunate reality that the number of insolvencies in the construction sector seems certain to rise in coming months as the economic impact of COVID-19 takes effect. In this context, the recent Supreme Court decision in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (In Liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd [2020] UKSC 25 is particularly relevant.
This case concerned important questions regarding the compatibility of two statutory regimes:
In a case that is sure to keep lawyers talking for months, the Supreme Court has decided the important case of Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (In Liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd.
The case concerns the relationship between the statutory adjudication and insolvency set-off regimes.
The Court of Appeal judgment in JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov, Madiyar Ablyazov [2018] EWCA Civ 1176 confirms the correct approach when assessing the ‘prohibited purpose’ element of section 423 claims.
Summary
Carillion was perhaps best known for its public sector work. However, the insolvency of the UK’s second-largest construction company will inevitably have significant implications for the private sector.
Global Corporate Limited v Dirk Stefan Hale [2017] EWHC 2277 (Ch)
Summary
A recent judgment re-iterates the importance of carefully drafting a deed of assignment when assigning claims.
In Global Corporate, the liquidators of a company assigned certain claims by way of a deed of assignment to Global Corporate Limited (the “Assignee”). The Assignee (the Applicant in this case) then brought several claims against the company’s former director and shareholder.
Horton v Henry: Pensions clarified
We previously discussed the uncertainty surrounding the treatment of pensions in a bankruptcy which arose from two conflicting high court decisions: Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch) and Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch).
In Hinton v Wotherspoon [2016] EWHC 623 (CH) (where this firm successfully represented the trustee in bankruptcy, Lloyd Hinton of Insolve Plus Limited), the court commented that the approach in Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch) was “plainly correct”.
FACTS:
InHinton v Wotherspoon [2016] EWHC 623 (CH), Jason Freedman and Aziz Abdul successfully secured an Income Payments Order (“IPO”) on behalf of the Trustee in Bankruptcy.
The court also provided useful guidance on the correct position where a bankrupt has made an election to draw down from his private pension but not given specific instructions as to application of the funds.
LEGAL BACKGROUND:
Stevensdrake Ltd v Stephen Hunt & Others [2015] EWHC 1527 (Ch)
Introduction
The High Court’s recent judgment in Stevensdrake Ltd -v- Stephen Hunt & Others highlights the need for Insolvency Practitioners to make sure that they carefully review conditional fee arrangements before entering into them and understand the potential contractual ramifications which may give rise to personal liability.
Background