Litigation between Mr and Mrs Brake, Axnoller Events Ltd and various other parties has been the subject of a significant number of judgments covering a wide range of legal issues. The underlying facts are convoluted but can be briefly summarised for the purpose of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Brake & Anor v The Chedington Court Estate Ltd [2023] UKSC 29 as follows.

The application before HHJ Paul Matthews, sitting as Judge of the High Court, in Patley Wood Farm LLP & Ors v Kristina Kicks & Anor [2022] EWHC 2973 (Ch) was essentially a challenge to the decision of trustees in bankruptcy not to intervene in an appeal in possession proceedings between the bankrupts and a Chedington, a creditor, following the purported sale of the bankrupts’ interest in a property known as West Axnoller Cottage.

Summary of Purdue Pharma, L.P. v, City of Grand Prairie (In re Purdue Pharma, L.P.), No. 22–110 – Bk (2d Cir. May 30, 2023)

King v Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund [2023] EWHC 1408 (Ch) deals with a number of bases on which Susan King, James King and Anthony King each applied to set aside statutory demands for £219,700.00 made by the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund. That sum was payable under an interim costs order made against the Kings by Cockerill J following a successful strike out of conspiracy proceedings. Those in turn arose out of a misrepresentation case.

If at first you don’t succeed, try (and maybe try) again.

Basic Facts: Nomenclature and Numbers

When a previously reorganized debtor files a second chapter 11 case, courts and commentators refer to that continued entity’s second reorganization as a “chapter 22.” When a third case follows a second, “chapter 33” is a favored colloquialism; when a fourth, “chapter 44” is the name of choice. In practice, however, industry figures often denominate any repeat bankruptcy as a “chapter 22.”

The question for the court in Durkan & Anor v Jones (Re Nicholas Mark Jones) [2023] EWHC 1359 (Ch) was whether it had jurisdiction to make a bankruptcy order.

In two cases in as many months, the Supreme Court tackled the application of sovereign immunity in two separate insolvency statutes. Two separate government-like entities suffered conflicting fates while the Court (arguably) employed the same analysis. How so?

Clear Statement Rule

Official Receiver v Kelly (Re Walmley Ash Ltd and Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986) [2023] EWHC 1181 (Ch) deals with an application for a disqualification order under s 6 Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 against Andrew John Kelly arising out of his conduct as a director of Walmsley Ash Ltd which was wound up by the court on an HMRC petition in 2017. The conduct relied on was that:

In the latest decision of the Hong Kong court to consider the interplay between arbitration clauses and winding-up or bankruptcy petitions, on 22 May 2023, the Hon. Linda Chan J (the Judge) made a winding-up order against Simplicity & Vogue Retailing (HK) Co. Limited (the Company) and rejected the Company’s argument that the dispute over the underlying debt should be referred to arbitration.

City Gardens Ltd v DOK82 Ltd [2023] EWHC 1149 (Ch) was a successful appeal against the decision of the district judge below to dismiss a winding up petition on several bases: first that the court had no jurisdiction to make an order because arrangements between the parties were subject to an exclusive jurisdiction clause, secondly because they provided for the application of Hong Kong law rather than English law, thirdly by reason of disputes regarding certain other contractual terms, and finally by reason of an issue as to whether the company had a viable cross claim.