As reported in Building earlier this year (4 February) the construction industry experienced the highest number of insolvencies of any UK industry in 2018. Last year saw 2,954 firms become insolvent, an increase of 12% on the previous year and more than in any year since 2013. It is well known that the construction industry is particularly prone to insolvencies and there has been a great deal written about why that is the case and what can be done about it.

According to the recent case of Sell Your Car With Us Ltd v Sareen [2019] – yes, they are.

Historically the courts have looked dimly on the use of insolvency proceedings as a method of debt collection. For this reason, where an individual or company appears to have the means to pay a debt but apparently refuses to do so, the courts have implied that the only proper legal recourse is through litigation. In this case, the judge explained why she considers this submission to have been taken too far.

Background

In the past five years, insolvency rates in the construction industry have increased more quickly than in other industries across the UK. This article considers the common causes of construction insolvency and how to protect your position if insolvency occurs.

Recent trends

Insolvency may seem an unlikely scenario for your pension plan's employer today and for the foreseeable future but the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) has recently published guidance recommending that defined benefit pension plan trustees should make contingency plans for employer insolvency "as with any sensible business continuity or disaster recovery planning".

Pantiles Investments Limited & Anor v Winckler [2019] EWHC 1298 (Ch)

Background

The Liquidator of the Pantiles Investments Limited (Company) brought a claim (among others) for fraudulent trading against its former director, Ms Winckler. The claim related to a property transaction involving Ms Winkler, an associate (Mr Goldbart) and the Company. In summary, the transaction was as follows:

In February, following oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, we wrote about the hugely important trademark law issue presented by this case, namely: If a bankrupt trademark licensor “rejects” an executory trademark license agreement, does that bankruptcy action terminate the licensee’s right to continue using the licensed trademark for the remaining term of the agreement?

Last year the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) held that a company in liquidation cannot refer a dispute to adjudication in circumstances where there are claims by a company in liquidation and cross claims by the other party1.

Oral argument before the Supreme Court was held on February 20 in the much-watched and even more intensely discussed trademark dispute Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. The case presents the difficult and multifaceted question: Does bankruptcy law insulate the right of a trademark licensee to continue using the licensed mark despite the bankrupt trademark licensor’s decision to “reject” the remaining term of the trademark license?

It looks like 2019 won't be the new start many had hoped for. With large high street retailers already teetering on the edge after a disappointing Christmas and the government still up in arms about the B word, the country's commercial real estate market is looking more and more uncertain.

From time to time the statutory rights available to parties to construction contracts appears to come into conflict with other sets of provisions that also claim to govern the same areas of dispute. Perhaps the best known such clash, between adjudication and the effect of insolvency, was that explored in the Scottish case of Melville Dundas Limited (in Receivership) v George Wimpey UK Limited[1] in 2007.