Welcome to our latest quarterly bulletin which contains updates on commercial litigation developments over the past three months, largely by reference to articles posted to our Litigation Notes blog in that period. Other posts are available on the blog, which you can visit any time. Or subscribe to be notified of the latest updates: https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/notes/litigation.
The Court of Appeal has set aside a freezing order obtained by a provisional liquidator within winding up proceedings, on the basis that the cross-undertaking in damages given by him was inadequate because it was limited to the amount recovered for the estate. The liquidator had not discharged the burden of showing good reason to depart from the “default position” that a cross-undertaking should be unlimited in amount: Hunt v Ubhi [2023] EWCA Civ 417.
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.
The High Court has allowed an application for an order to enable access to a bankrupt’s pension to satisfy debts arising from fraud. Prior to the bankruptcy, judgment was obtained against him for £3.2m plus costs.
Pension Protection Fund: valuation assumptions
The PPF has consulted on changing the assumptions used for section 143 valuations (used for schemes in assessment periods) and section 179 valuations (used when setting a scheme's risk-based levy). The PPF expects that the proposed changes would increase section 143 and section 179 liabilities by just under 4% and would potentially lead to a small increase in the number of schemes transferring to the PPF.
Pension Protection Fund: insolvency risk provider
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction