The High Court has held that there is no common law rule preventing enforcement of a foreign judgment in England and Wales simply because it is not presently or fully enforceable in the relevant foreign jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal has held that a settlement agreement between a bank and a group of companies which included releases of the parties’ affiliates prevented the companies from later pursuing claims against their own affiliates. Those affiliates were held to include former administrators appointed by the bank and the administrators’ solicitors: Schofield v Smith [2022] EWCA Civ 824.

In its recent decision in Walton v ACN 004 410 833 Limited (formerly Arrium Limited) (in liquidation) [2022] HCA 3 (Walton), the High Court of Australia held, in a split decision, that the mandatory public examination power contained in section 596A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) could be used by eligible applicants to examine directors and other officers of a company in external administration, including senior management, external administrators and trustees, about the company’s affairs for the broad purposes of enforcing and promoting comp

A recent decision illustrates the court’s approach to providing non-party access to documents referred to at a public hearing, in the context of a proposed scheme of arrangement: Re Port Finance Investment Ltd [2021] EWHC 454 (Ch).

On 12 September 2018, the High Court of Australia (High Court) gave judgment in the case of Mighty River International Limited v Hughes (Mighty River).1 In that decision, the High Court (by a 3:2 majority) held that a “holding” deed of company arrangement (DOCA) is valid.

In brief

On 31 January 2017, Brereton J of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in In the matter of OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Limited (administrators appointed) [2017] NSWSC 21 declared that the interests of Alleasing Pty Limited as lessor of a certain crusher and spare parts had vested in OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Limited, effectively giving ownership of the leased assets to the insolvent estate to be realised for the benefit of creditors generally after the company mistakenly registered the financing statements against Onesteel’s ABN rather than its ACN.

Snapshot

In a recent decision, the High Court held that legal advice taken in relation to certain transactions was not protected by privilege, as there was prima facie evidence that the purpose of the advice was to structure the transactions in a way that avoided the client’s liability to pay local authority care charges and/or as a transaction defrauding creditors: London Borough of Brent v Kane [2014] EWHC 4564 (Ch).

The Court of Appeal has held that claimant liquidators were in breach of an “unless order” for e-disclosure, overturning the High Court’s decision that there was no breach despite the mistaken omission of certain important categories of documents from the list:Smailes v McNally [2014] EWCA Civ 1296. The result was that the liquidators’ claim was struck out.

In the context of joint liquidators’ applications for documents “belonging to” the company or “relating to” its affairs (under sections 324 and 326 of the Insolvency Act 1986), the High Court confirmed that English law applied to determine whether documents could be withheld by the Luxembourg lawyers who were respondents to the application.