Over the decade since the implementation of the costs reforms proposed in Lord Jackson's Review of Civil Litigation Costs, lawyers and litigants have become accustomed to the courts actively managing the costs of disputes with a value up to £10 million. But the court also retains a discretion to apply the costs management regime in cases even above this level.

The Court of Appeal recently considered when precisely a company had given a preference within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1986 – a question of timing which may impact on whether an insolvency practitioner can later unwind the preferential treatment for the benefit of creditors as a whole.

Here we look at what a preference is, and when it is deemed to be given.

Preferences

The court has the power to challenge any decision of the officeholder in an insolvency process on application by a dissatisfied party. The ambit of that power depends upon the nature of the insolvency process but, broadly, the following categories of people will be entitled to apply:

Letting a single property for a limited period of time can amount to “carrying on business” for the purposes of section 265(2)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), as confirmed in the recent case Durkan v Jones [2023] EWHC 1359 (Ch).

Background

The recent judgment in City Gardens Ltd v DOK82 Ltd [2023] EWHC 1149 (Ch) serves as a useful reminder of the extent of, and principles governing, the English court’s jurisdiction to wind up a company on the basis of inability to pay its debts.

Background

City Gardens Limited (C), and DOK82 Ltd (D), had entered into a “memorandum of understanding” (MoU) in relation to a significant debt owed by D to C.

In a recent decision in the high value bankruptcy of Pramod Mittal (Mr Mittal), the Chancery division considered the rules on service of insolvency applications. The decision underlines the importance of adhering to service rules and giving as much notice as possible of insolvency applications.

In Re Scherzade Khilji (in bankruptcy) the court provided useful guidance on when the three-year "use it or lose it" limitation period to realise a bankrupt’s primary place of residence (provided by section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986) commences.

Background

This case concerns the property interests of Ms Scherzade Khilji (Ms Khilji), who was declared bankrupt on 2 July 2018. Her trustee in bankruptcy was appointed on 7 August 2018 (the trustee).

Amidst the cost of living crisis, businesses are folding in record numbers, with barely a week passing without news of a big company casualty. Paperchase is the latest retailer to collapse into administration, with the business being snapped up by Tesco for sale in its superstores and 820 jobs reportedly at risk. So how can we identify the businesses that are in the danger zone and could be heading for insolvency?

1. Profit warnings

With rising insolvency rates, driven in particular by the number of creditors’ voluntary liquidations reaching record highs, the decision in the recent Court of Appeal case of PSV 1982 Limited v Langdon [2022] EWCA Civ 1319 serves as a timely reminder for directors of the personal risks involved in re-using the name of a liquidated company.

The High Court has held an original tenant and guarantor of a lease liable for unpaid sums due where the new tenant had compromised its liabilities under the lease pursuant to a restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). Read on for our analysis of Oceanfill Limited v Nuffield Health Wellbeing Limited and Cannons Group Limited [2022] EWHC 2178 (Ch).

The lease and licence to assign