Background

Crabb was the sole director of Courtside Recycling Ltd (Courtside). From 2014 to 2018, Crabb instructed Courtside's accountants to file VAT returns but only provided bank statements for one of the Company's three bank accounts. As a result, the VAT assessments significantly understated Courtside's true VAT liabilities for this period.

Following its own investigation and using transaction information gathered from Courtside's other bank accounts, HMRC issued amended VAT assessments. Courtside was unable to pay its VAT liabilities.

Background

This case involved a winding up petition presented against Bridger & Co Ltd (the Company) on 15 June 2023. The petition debt arises out of a funding agreement between the parties. The Company applied for an injunction to restrain the advertisement of the petition on various grounds. The court declined to make an injunction.

Decision

The judgment helpfully confirms the position on three issues in these types of proceedings:

In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.

A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.

A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.

This case concerned the immunity of receivers from claims, where the Court had approved the sale of assets over which they were appointed.

Background

Following a dispute between two shareholders of Blackpool Football Club Limited (BFCL), receivers were appointed by the court over certain assets related to Blackpool Football Club, including the shares held by the majority shareholder in BCFL, Denaxe Limited (Denaxe).

During the marketing process, the receivers concluded the best way forward was to sell the assets as one complete package.

The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (SoS) presented winding up petitions against Fabcourt Developments Limited, Clarkson Murphy Partners Limited, Hall Contracting Services Limited and Sentor Solutions Commercial Ltd (the Companies).

The SoS may present a petition for a company to be wound up where it appears that it is expedient in the public interest and if the court thinks it just and equitable to do so.

Background

Since 2021, soaring wholesale energy costs have caused concern for businesses already battling a difficult economic climate with wider inflationary pressures, such as higher interest rates.  

The government's mini-budget on 23 September 2022 cancelled the planned increase in the corporate tax rate (the proposed increase from 19% to 25%). This will assist those companies which are profit-making, but without support to reduce the cost base, this provides limited relief to others.

In Re Edengate Homes (Butley Hall) Ltd (in liquidation) Lock v Stanley (in his capacity as liquidator) and another [2021] EWHC 2970 (Ch), the High Court has confirmed that to reverse a liquidator's assignment of claims to a third party, the claimant must satisfy a 'formidable' test.

Background

A Supreme Court in Australia has dismissed an application by a UK company’s moratorium restructuring practitioners for recognition of a UK moratorium and ordered that the company be wound up under Australian law.

The decision provides insights into the interaction between cross-border insolvencies and the winding up in Australia of foreign companies under Australian law.

Introduction

In the matter of Hydrodec Group Plc [2021] NSWSC 755, delivered 24 June 2021, the New South Wales Supreme Court:

It is possible for a trustee in bankruptcy to make a claim to property held by a bankrupt on trust. For example, by lodging a caveat over a home that is held on trust.

A trustee in bankruptcy may be able to make a claim, relying on the bankrupt’s right of indemnity as trustee of the trust. This is because the bankrupt’s right of indemnity, as trustee, is itself property that vests in the trustee in bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

Explaining a trustee’s right of indemnity