Although the contentious background to the applications to restrain the presentation of two winding up petitions heard together in (but only listed singularly as) the case of Shorts Gardens LLB v London Borough of Camden Council [2020] EWHC 1001 (Ch) is somewhat unusual, these cases nonetheless raise some interesting points of principle which may be used by the courts in determining whether it is appropriate to restrain or dismiss a winding up petition due to COVID-19.

As businesses and companies in the UK face an uncertain few weeks and months with unprecedented pressures, it can be easy for directors to panic and not know where to turn.

To assist in decision-making, we give a reminder of the law in this area, and some signposts for those seeking help.

In this briefing, we give a short reminder of statutory duties owed by UK directors under the Companies Act 2006, the potential risks of continuing to trade while possibly insolvent, and actions that should be taken in order to mitigate those risks.

Directors’ duties

Hot on the heels of our April 2020 article on the proposed reintroduction of the Crown preference, Parliament has recently approved legislation that will increase the ring-fenced amount available to unsecured creditors on an insolvency of a company from £600,000 to £800,000.

In our last article, which can be found here, we reported on the government’s intention to give HMRC priority in the recovery of certain debts (including VAT, PAYE, Employee NICs, and Construction Industry Scheme deductions ) in insolvency proceedings.

In the landmark decision in Re Systems Building Services Group Limited [2020] EWHC 54 (Ch), ICC Judge Barber held that the duties of a director survive the insolvency of a company.

In Peel Port Shareholder Finance Co Ltd v Dornoch Ltd [2017] EWHC 876 (TCC), Peel Port Shareholder Finance Co Ltd (Peel Port) applied for pre-action disclosure of the defendant's insurance policy under Civil Procedure Rule 31.16. Peel Port was not able to rely on the provisions in Third Party (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 because the defendant was not insolvent. Peel Port argued that it was highly probable that rights against insurers would be transferred to them under the 2010 Act in due course.

A key question in any litigation is whether the defendant can satisfy a judgment. Where the defendant is both insolvent and insured a further issue is whether the claimant can ultimately recover payment from the insurer. This may be possible under the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930 ("1930 Act") but there are a number of significant hurdles for a third party to overcome before it can benefit from the application of the1930 Act.

The Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 is a step closer to coming in to force with the publication of draft Regulations whose aim is to correct omissions in the Act. Once in force the Act will improve the position of claimants who are bringing actions against insolvent defendants and looking to recover from those defendants' insurers.