Introduction

When parties agree to submit disputes to arbitration there is often language defining the issues that can be determined by arbitration, such as ‘any dispute arising out of or in connection with this contract, including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination’ (LCIA recommended clause). Once a dispute has arisen the exact scope of the issues before the arbitral tribunal will likely be detailed in the terms of reference or other procedural document.

There have been many reported cases in the bankruptcies of Mr and Mrs Brake (the “Brakes”) including the recent case of Patley Wood Farm LLP v Kicks [2023] EWCA Civ 901 where the Court of Appeal considered an application under s303 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA 1986”) against a decision of the trustees in bankruptcy of the Brakes (the “Trustees”).

The Supreme Court’s judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and ors^[1] (“Sequana”) is a key decision on the law surrounding directors’ duties.

The High Court was required to consider the Supreme Court’s Sequana judgment in Hunt v Singh (below).

What did we learn from Sequana?

In the recent case of Brake & Anor v Chedington Court Estate Limited [2023] UKSC 29, the Supreme Court has clarified the categories of persons who have standing to make a challenge to the conduct of a trustee in bankruptcy under s303 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”). The Supreme Court confirmed that its decision will also apply to creditors and others seeking to challenge the actions of a liquidator under s168(5) of the Act. The decision will be welcomed by practitioners.

The rising strength of the United Arab Emirates as a commercial powerhouse has continued as the Covid-19 pandemic recedes. The UAE was a key business hub prior to 2020, but the flow of money and talent into the country has increased since then, driven by numerous factors including the UAE’s business-friendly climate, its stable political regime, and the access to fair and transparent justice mechanisms.