The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has delivered a significant judgment in Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd v Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (in liquidation) [2018] EWHC 2043 (TCC) where the company seeking to refer a dispute to adjudication was in liquidation. The substance of the dispute related to the contractor's claim for payment allegedly due for work completed, and damages for loss of profits.

The contract and the facts

In the final part of this series, we look at how you can protect your position and be prepared in the event of an impending insolvency.

Thinking ahead

It is always prudent to assess insolvency risk before finalising a contract. The trading history and financial position of a company should be carefully reviewed and a financial risk assessment made at both the outset and during the lifetime of a project. Obtain an up to date set of accounts and a credit report before entering into your contract to enable you to assess the counterparty's financial viability.

In the second of our mini-series on insolvency in construction, we consider what you need to do when you find out that the party you are in contract with has become (or is about to become) insolvent.

Who are you in contract with? Which specific entity?

The first thing you should do in the event of a counterparty's alleged insolvency is check which legal entity you are in a contract with.

This is in order to prevent you from acting too early and committing a repudiatory breach yourself, if you take pre-emptive action against your counterparty.

Insolvency is high on the agenda in the construction industry.

In the first of this mini series, we take a look at the meaning of insolvency and summarise the main insolvency processes that can typically affect parties involved in construction projects. The series will also address contract issues and minimising risk, so keep an eye out for our future articles on this topic.

By now, you will all be aware of the recently gazetted the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 ("Amendment Ordinance"), heralding as it does a much anticipated refreshment and modernisation of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance ("CWUMPO") and the Companies (Winding up) Rules ("CWUR").

Given that the last major amendments to the corporate winding-up regime in Hong Kong occurred in 1984, reform in this area is long overdue.

In Erceg v Erceg¹ the New Zealand Court of Appeal ruled on the standing of bankrupt beneficiaries to bring claims against trustees. In addition, the Court considered the role of trustee discretion when determining beneficiary access to trust documentation. The decision is useful for trustees and beneficiaries alike, and provides clarity on the steps a Court may take when deciding whether or not to grant beneficiaries disclosure of trust information. Although this is a New Zealand decision, other common law courts such as Hong Kong may reach similar conclusions.

In Re Hin-Pro International Logistics Limited[1], the Hong Kong Court of First Instance held that it has jurisdiction to grant leave to amend a creditor's winding up petition to include debts accrued only after its presentation.

In Wong Tak Man, Stephen & Another v Cheung Siu Fai & Ors [2015] HMP 1431/2012, the Court held that transfers of funds made by a bankrupt were not transactions at undervalue or unfair preferences pursuant to s49 and s50 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (the "BO"). This case serves as a useful reminder on how the Court will interpret s49 and s50 BO, as deemed to be applied in a corporate context by s.266B(1)(a) of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32).

Facts 

In its landmark decision of Kam Leung Sui Kwan v Kam Kwan Lai & Ors FACV 4/2015, issued yesterday, the Court of Final Appeal has brought some closure to the long running Yung Kee restaurant matter by making a winding up order against Yung Kee Holdings Limited (YKHL) with a 28-day stay to allow the parties to consider possible buy-out opportunities.  This reverses the previous decisions in the Court of First Instance and the

The case of Re Company A-E [2015] HCMP 2019/2015 demonstrates that the Court will take a practical approach in determining whether a funding arrangement infringes upon the common law rules against maintenance and champerty. The Court will consider commercial factors, such as the underlying rationale for the funding arrangement and the commercial character of the funder, alongside its analysis of the common law principles.