Key points
Failure to comply with sections 333 and 363 of the Insolvency Act constitutes contempt of court for which a committal order may be obtained.
A trustee in bankruptcy should not usually require permission to apply for a committal order.
Correct procedure for application confirmed by the court.
Key points
Information obtained by compulsion can be shared between officeholders of connected estates (parent/subsidiary)
There must, however, be a possibility that there will be a surplus in the subsidiary estate
The prospect must be real as opposed to fanciful
The facts
Key points
Where the underlying liability on which a bankruptcy order is made is subsequently set aside, the correct remedy is rescission under s.375(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Annulment under s.282(1)(a) is the appropriate remedy when, on grounds existing at the time of making the bankruptcy order, the order ought not to have been made.
The facts
Key points
Court reiterated circumstances in which it will sanction a proposed course of action by administrators
Requirement that the course of action be “particularly momentous”
Court sanctioned proposed settlement in the circumstances
The Facts
Key point
In certain circumstances the court will look to parallel statutory provisions where existing applicable statute does not accommodate the situation, as long as the latter is not offended, expanded or altered by doing so.
The facts
This application for directions was brought by the administrators of Lehman Brothers Europe Ltd (the “Company”) on:
Key Points
Key Points
- Statutory powers are to be exercised in accordance with a company’s articles of association
- The Duomatic principle cannot simply be used as a bandage to cure a company’s procedural errors
The Facts
This appeal considered whether the sole director of a company, whose articles required two directors for its board meeting to be quorate, could validly appoint administrators under paragraph 22 Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Key points
- The dismissal of the appellant’s previous application for an annulment of a bankruptcy order was a serious procedural irregularity
- A court may annul a bankruptcy order under s 282 IA 1986 if it is satisfied that the order ought not to have been made based on grounds existing at the time the order was made
- In relation to appeals made pursuant to s 375 IA 1986 to review or rescind the decision of a lower court, the court may consider fresh material.
The facts
Key Points
- Floating charge is valid even where there are no unencumbered assets at the time it is taken
- Crystallisation of prior ranking floating charge does not impact enforceability of second ranking floating charge
The Facts