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.

In the recent case of Official Receiver v Zhi Charles (FACV 8/2015) (5 November 2015), the Court of Final Appeal (the "CFA") found s 30A(10)(a) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap 6) (the "BO") unconstitutional.

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.

In the recent landmark decision of Re Vanguard Energy Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 156, the Singapore High Court confirmed that litigation funding may, in the context of insolvency and under the appropriate circumstances, be permitted in Singapore.

In the unusual case of Albert Edward Rodrigues v Associacao Portuguesa de Socorrous Mutuos (in liquidation) (HCMP 1391/2014), the Hong Kong Court of First Instance ordered a permanent stay of a company’s creditors’ voluntary winding up which has technically been going for 25 years, and in so doing reminded us of the applicable principles and the fact sensitive nature of such applications.

Background

In the recent case of In re Shiamas International Limited (HCCW 80/2014), the Hong Kong Court of First Instance refused to stay a winding-up petition on the ground of a pending appeal from a decision of the Paris Court of Appeal to the French Court of Cassation.  This case is a timely reminder of the difficulties in obtaining a stay of a winding-up petition, the applicable principles and shows that the Court is willing to allow some flexibility.

Background