Overview

• The UK Supreme Court issued a recent decision in R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and Another [2023] UKSC 38.
• Crucially, the Court determined that an administrator is not an officer of the company within the meaning of the phrase 'any director, manager, secretary or similar officer of the body corporate', for the purpose of section 194(3).

Contents

R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and Another [2023] UKSC 38

Making an out of hours qualifying floating charge holder (“QFCH”) appointment can be problematic due to the procedural requirements set out in Rule 3.20 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (the “Rules”).

R (ON THE APPLICATION OF PALMER) V NORTHERN DERBYSHIRE MAGISTRATES COURT AND ANOTHER [2023] UKSC 38

Insolvency practitioners will welcome the Supreme Court’s recent decision that an administrator of a company appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA) does not fall within the ambit of section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992) (TULRCA) and therefore cannot be held personally liable under criminal law for the company’s failure to give notice to the Secretary of State in accordance with section 193 of TULRCA.

A thorny question facing a company when considering a Restructuring Plan is how to deal with HMRC particularly following HMRC’s opposition to recent plans.

Creditors now have some assistance in these deliberations thanks toguidance published by HMRC setting out how they will approach discussions with companies considering a Restructuring Plan.

The answer to that question and with a huge sigh of relief is thankfully not, following the Supreme Court finding that an administrator of a company appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”) is not an “officer” of the company within the meaning of section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“TULRCA”).

With the passing of the Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Act (MTSA) (likely to pass into law in 2024) the way in which we take security over rights and assets in Scotland will be brought firmly into the 21st century, doing away with the need to rely on statutes from as long ago as 1862 and a smattering of case law which has fostered uncertainty in the market for almost as long.

In September 2023, the insolvency administrator of the insolvent Wirecard AG began reclaiming dividend distributions for 2017 and 2018 from shareholders. This is following a judgment of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in March 2023 (BGH judgment of March 30, 2023 – IX ZR 121/22). In that judgment the BGH ruled that in the event of a company’s insolvency, the insolvency administrator can demand back dividend payments made to shareholders for up to four years pursuant to section 134 (1) of the Insolvency Code (InsO).

Last week marked another instalment in the notorious insolvency of Comet Group plc (Comet) when the Court of Appeal unanimously set aside the decision of the High Court at first instance which, at the time, was claimed to be the largest successful preference claim in value, resulting in Darty Holdings SAS (successor to Kesa International Ltd (KIL)) being ordered to pay approximately GBP90 million to the liquidators of Comet.

The implementation, just over a year ago, of Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on Preventive Restructuring Frameworks, has meant a real Copernican shift in Spanish insolvency law. In particular in the field of pre-bankruptcy law, as it has established a new model based on Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Act in substantive law and UK Schemes of Arrangement in procedural law.

The Court of Appeal has unanimously overturned an unlawful preference ruling from the High Court, finding instead that the repayment of inter-company debt did not amount to a preference because, at the time the operative decision to make the repayment occurred, there was no desire to prefer.