The Grand Court has allowed the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator under section 104(3) of the Companies Act (2023 Revision) (the Act) for the purpose of facilitating a restructuring, rather than using the tailor-made Restructuring Officer provisions under section 91(B) of the Act.

Background

Phoenix Tech Ltd had carried on business to defraud HMRC by participating in a kind of VAT fraud sometimes called “missing trader intra-community” fraud or “carousel” fraud. It had submitted a VAT return claiming the right to deduct VAT and a repayment in respect of various transactions in the sum of £4.5 million. HMRC denied the input tax claim in relation to the transactions and issued a misdeclaration penalty for £607,387. The company appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber).

In Re a Company [2024] EWHC 1070 (Ch) was an application to restrain presentation of a petition on five grounds:

(1) that the judgment debt was time-barred; (2) that it was unclear if there had been an acknowledgment of the debt within the limitation period; (3) that there was a substantial dispute as to whether the judgment debt had been satisfied; (4) that the company was solvent; and (5) whether it was appropriate to grant an injunction.

The Grand Court confirms that the Court has the jurisdiction to appoint an alternative voluntary liquidator in place of a Liquidating Agent under a limited partnership agreement.

Background

Purkiss v Kennedy & Ors [2024] EWHC 1081 (Ch) is another judgment in a string of cases arising out of schemes designed to enable self-employed individuals to avoid paying income tax and national insurance on their remuneration. The decision of the Supreme Court in RFC 2012 Plc v AG for Scotland demonstrated the flaws that often mean such schemes fail.

The judgment of Chief ICC Judge Briggs in Becker (A Bankrupt) v Ford & Ors [2024] EWHC 1001 (Ch) provides a useful summary of the matters to which the court should have regard when considering an application to lift the suspension of a bankrupt’s discharge.

ICC Judge Mullen’s judgment in Sriram v Revenue & Customs & Anor [2024] EWHC 853 (Ch) follows an application by the bankrupt, Ms Sriram, to annul a bankruptcy order made against her on a petition of HMRC in circumstances in which proper service of both the statutory demand and the petition was contested and in which her capacity to understand the proceedings against her was also in issue.

Reid-Roberts & Anor v Mei-Lin & Anor (Re Audun Mar Gudmundsson (a Bankrupt) [2024] EWHC 759 (Ch) was an unusual case resulting in an unusual application of the exceptional circumstances rule in the context of an application by the joint trustees in bankruptcy of Audun Mar Gudmundson for declarations as to the beneficial ownership of his and his ex-wife’s former matrimonial home and orders under s 335A Insolvency Act 1986 for possession and sale.

ICC Judge Greenwood’s judgment in Kendall & Anor v Ball & Anor (Re Sherwood Oak Homes Ltd – Sherwood Oak Holdings Ltd) [2024] EWHC 746 (Ch) arises out of an application by the administrators of Sherwood Oak Homes Ltd and Sherwood Oak Holdings Ltd under para 63 Sch B1 Insolvency Act 1986 and/or s 234 Insolvency Act for a declaration that land forming part of a development site in Mansfield Woodhouse was held on resulting and/or constructive trust for the benefit of Homes or Holdings and an order for its transfer.

Many will have waited for a bus only for two to come along at once. So it is in the Cayman Islands, with the ongoing saga as to whether a shareholder can make a claim for misrepresentation in a liquidation and, if so, where such a claim ranks in the order of priority. The rule in Houldsworth barring such claims has been in existence for over 140 years. However, two liquidations have, within weeks of each other, sought to overturn this longstanding rule.