Applying for permission to advance fresh evidence on appeal is a tricky application, which has had varying degrees of success in the courts. Zheng Yougxiong v Gate Ventures Plc(1) is a useful example of the application of the criteria, albeit in the context of insolvency proceedings.
Background
Mr Zheng was a shareholder in, and creditor of, Gate Ventures plc. He sought and failed to obtain an administration order against Gate Ventures plc on the basis of a £2.5 million debt (the First Application).
In UBS AG v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig GmbH(1) the Court of Appeal heard an appeal relating to whether complex, loss-making financial transactions were enforceable against the respondent (KWL) in circumstances where they had been entered into against the backdrop of a corrupt relationship between the appellant counterparty (UBS) and the respondent's agent (Value Partners).
From 1 April 2016, conditional fee agreements (CFA), after the event premiums and success fees will no longer be recoverable in insolvency cases.
The legislative change is set to have the biggest impact on lower-value insolvency cases (damages less than £500,000 and legal costs lower than £200,000).
In June 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case known as Stern v. Marshall. The U.S. Supreme Court held that filing a proof of claim in a bankruptcy case does not constitute consent to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over all counterclaims or actions that the bankruptcy estate may later bring against the creditor.
In fact, filing the proof of claim constitutes consent only to those claims or actions that either (1) stem from the bankruptcy case itself; or (2) are necessary to the resolution of the creditor’s proof of claim.
When a traditional nonbanking company files a case under the Bankruptcy Code, a judge is appointed to be the neutral arbiter of disputes that arise between the debtor and its creditors.
Introduction