A Supreme Court judgment issued yesterday has overturned a Court of Appeal decision heavily limiting the ability of insolvency practitioners to commence and enforce adjudication proceedings against their creditors. The court’s decision allows much greater flexibility in the use of adjudication for the administration of construction insolvencies, however some uncertainty remains over the basis on which decisions obtained in such adjudications will be permitted to be enforced against creditors.

Last year we reported on a decision of the Scottish Court of Session which suggested that greater leniency may apply to the interpretation of performance bonds in Scotland than in England (see our earlier Law-Now here). A further decision from the Court of Session issued last month would appear to support this trend.

Fife Council v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance plc

Summary

The High Court recently handed down the judgment in Ralls Builders Ltd (In Liquidation), Re [2016] EWHC 1812 (Ch). It was held that liquidators and administrators are not able to recover their own costs and expenses of investigating a wrongful trading claim from the directors of a company, even following a finding of wrongful trading under section 214 Insolvency Act 1986.

Background

A recent Scottish Inner House decision provides an overview of the approach to be taken in Scotland to interpreting performance bonds. The decision notes that the degree of compliance required when making a call may be strict, or not so strict, depending on the construction of the bond. The court’s decision also refers to the commercial purpose of the bond being key and may suggest that a more lenient approach to performance bonds is to apply in Scotland.

The Court of Appeal gave judgment today (15 November 2013) in favour of licensed insolvency practitioner Andrew Hosking (D), unanimously upholding a strike out judgment of Peter Smith J made on 22 February 2013. 

Stephen Hunt, liquidator of Ovenden Colbert Printers Limited (“OCP”), had sued D and 8 other defendants.  His claim against D was brought pursuant to sections 238 and 241 Insolvency Act 1986.  He alleged that D had received or benefited from payments made by OCP which constituted transactions at an undervalue.