Recent news reports have highlighted that the number of corporate insolvencies has continued to rise during 2022 and 2023, with the retail sector being particularly affected. Many companies are struggling to meet the demands of repaying government support provided during lockdown, increased running costs and high wages coupled with lower demand due to the cost of living crisis.

A recent Court of Appeal decision has criticised obiter comments made by the Supreme Court in Bresco v Lonsdale to the effect that adjudication decisions in favour of companies in liquidation could in certain circumstances, and with appropriate safeguards, be enforced by way of summary judgment. The Court of Appeal has indicated that such an approach would be at odds with the mandatory right of set-off arising under the Insolvency Rules. The Court of Appeal’s comments in this respect are themselves obiter and will give rise to uncertainty in this area of the law.

A recent TCC decision has provided further guidance on a liquidator’s options when seeking payments owed to insolvent companies through adjudication and the interplay with the Insolvency Rules. The decision establishes an exception to the general principle that such adjudication proceedings will not be enforced (and are liable to be injuncted) where the responding party has a cross-claim.

A recent TCC decision has ruled that adjudication proceedings cannot be brought by companies in liquidation in relation to financial claims under a construction contract. The decision will have considerable ramifications for the practical management of liquidations for companies with exposure to construction contracts. The decision would appear to run contrary to current liquidator practice, both as to the use of adjudication proceedings in liquidations and as to the assignment of claims to third parties, but essentially only confirms the mandatory nature of insolvency set-off.

A recent TCC decision has concluded that the contractor insolvency provisions of the JCT form continue to apply after a termination by the contractor for repudiation. This conclusion may give rise to surprising results and potentially allow an employer to claim from the contractor additional amounts incurred in completing the works with a third party even after termination for the employer’s own default and/or repudiation.

As we reported in April, the Insolvency Service has issued a call for evidence inviting comments on the issues with, and improvements that could be made to, the collective redundancy consultation requirements for employers facing insolvency. The Government has been seeking views on how well the requirements work both before an insolvency practitioner has been appointed to the failing company and after a formal appointment has been made. 

The Insolvency Service has issued a call for evidence inviting comments on the issues with, and improvements that could be made to, the collective redundancy consultation requirements for employers faced with insolvency. 

The Court of Appeal judgment in Crystal Palace FC Ltd v Kavanagh and others brings welcome news for administrators and businesses in administration. The Court of Appeal has overturned the EAT and held that the dismissals of some of the football club’s staff were made for an economic, technical or organisational (ETO) reason and so liability did not pass under TUPE to the new owners of the Club, making it easier for them to operate it as a going concern.

At this time of year, sports pages are normally rife with transfer speculation before the new domestic seasons begin across the UK. This summer is different however, due to increased interest in Glasgow Rangers and the effect of “TUPE transfers” of players to the Rangers Newco.

The Court of Appeal has held in the recent case of Spaceright Europe Ltd v Baillavoine and another (2011) that a dismissal can be for “a reason connected with the transfer” under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”) even if there is no particular transfer or transferee in existence or contemplation at the time of the dismissal. In the case Mr Baillavoine, the Chief Executive of Ultralon Holdings Ltd (“Ultralon”), was dismissed on the day Ultralon was placed into administration.