The Supreme Court has confirmed that s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which provides for the avoidance of certain transactions where they have been entered into for the purpose of defrauding creditors, has a broad application and covers not only transactions entered into by the debtor personally, but also those entered into via the debtor's company: El-Husseiny and another v Invest Bank PSC [2025] UKSC 4.

The High Court has held that the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (the "CBIR") did not, in itself, vest rights or interests in English land in the foreign representative.

On July 31, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada provided clarity regarding the treatment of administrative monetary penalties and disgorgement orders resulting from securities violations in Poonian v. British Columbia (Securities Commission).

As we enter 2025, we look back on five important decisions that made the news in 2024. Here is the the first case.

In a rare case, the High Court has dismissed an application by liquidators pursuant to sections 235 and 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which give office-holders broad powers to obtain information and documents concerning the company and its affairs: Webb v Eversholt Rail Limited [2024] EWHC 2217 (Ch).

The High Court has ordered two former directors of British Home Stores ("BHS") to pay equitable compensation of £110 million in respect of misfeasance claims brought by the former retailer's joint liquidators: Wright v Chappell [2024] EWHC 2166 (Ch).

In Sian Participation Corporation (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd [2024] UKPC 16, the Privy Council considered an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (BVI) as to whether a company should be wound up where the debt on which the winding up application is based is subject to an arbitration agreement and is said to be disputed and/or subject to a cross-claim.

The collapse of UK retailer British Home Stores ("BHS") in 2016 remains one of the most high-profile corporate insolvencies of recent times. It went from being a household name across the UK, with over 11,000 employees, to having reported debts of £1.3 billion, including a pension deficit of nearly £600 million. The group's demise saw the closure of some 164 stores nationwide and significant job losses.

Mareva orders, also known as freezing orders, may be granted when there is a risk that a defendant might move its assets out of reach of the court’s jurisdiction. Mareva can orders freeze assets owned directly or indirectly by the defendants. Oftentimes a defendant subject to a freezing order has other creditors seeking repayment. Can a creditor enforce its claim against the frozen assets? Yes, but the creditor must come to the court with clean hands and should not make loans to the defendant if it has notice of the order.

In the recent case of Re LYHFL Limited [2023] EWHC 2585 (Ch), the High Court has considered the proper interpretation of paragraph 12(1)(b), Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986, by which directors can apply to court for an order putting the company into administration.

Drawing on previous authorities concerning this and similar provisions, the Court concluded that an individual director has no power to make such an application without the approval of the majority of the company's directors and a valid board resolution.

Facts