In Mclean v Trustees of the Bankruptcy Estate of Dent [2016] EWHC 2650, the High Court considered the application of the equitable doctrines of marshalling and subrogation in relation to a fixed charge over (among other things) a dog.

A company and partnership borrowed funds from two sources – Barclays Bank and Lady Morrison. Barclays held, among other things, charges over farms owned by individual partners and an agricultural charge under the Agricultural Credits Act 1928 (UK), including a charge over a dog. Lady Morrison only held charges over the farms.

In a recent judgment, the Court of Appeal has held that trustees in bankruptcy could not waive legal professional privilege of a bankrupt, even though (i) the trustees in bankruptcy were entitled to take possession of the documents in which the privileged information was contained and (ii) the Insolvency Act 1986 provides generally that trustees in bankruptcy can exercise any power in respect of a bankrupt's property that the bankrupt himself could have exercised: Avonwick Holdings

In Day v The Official Assignee as Liquidator of GN Networks Ltd (in Liq) [2016] NZHC 2400, the High Court rejected a claim that the funding arrangement at issue constituted maintenance or champerty.

A recent judgment of the High Court will serve to remind minority, overseas creditors of any company having a substantial connection with England that their debtor’s liabilities could be compromised, restructured or reduced through a scheme of arrangement in England: Van Gansewinkel Groep BV [2015] EWHC 2151 (Ch).

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).

In Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2012] UKSC 46, the Supreme Court (by a majority of 4 to 1) reversed the Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision and held that the English court would not enforce a judgment made by the New York court in insolvency proceedings to which the defendant did not submit.