Two priority issues arise between creditors of a common debtor:

Khandanpour v Chambers [2019] EWCA Civ 570

Should relief from sanctions be granted where a judgment debtor purports to appropriate monies paid to satisfying a procedural condition for setting aside a default costs order, but the creditor purports to appropriate the monies instead to the judgment debt?

Background

The Court of Appeal decision in Triple Point Technology Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd turns on the wording of that particular contract, but was, in part, unexpected.

This decision does not reflect the generally held view (prior to this case) that liquidated damages will be recoverable until the point of termination at least.

Background

How deep is the “pool of facts in which it is permissible to fish for the basis of the new cause of action” if a party wishes to benefit from the ‘relation back’ doctrine when calculating limitation periods? The Court of Appeal gives guidance on the meaning of “the same or substantially the same facts” for the purpose of CPR r 17.4(2).

1. Introduction

What should your company do if faced with a statutory demand or a winding up petition? Time is of the essence where there is a threat of formal insolvency proceedings. If a winding up petition is being threatened it must not be ignored. The consequences that can flow once a winding up petition has been advertised can be devastating, both to the company's reputation and its financial position.

We identify some of the key considerations and steps that should be taken immediately so as to reduce any damage that a winding up petition can cause.

With the Court of Appeal’s decision in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd just a few weeks old, it is hardly surprising that people are looking again at the relationship between insolvency law and adjudication, noting that in cases of liquidation where parties have a cross claim, construction law defers to insolvency law.

This was clearly illustrated in Gregg Nowak Ltd v CSS Electrical Distributors Ltd, which came before HHJ Bailey earlier this month.

Background

This was a conjoined appeal alongside Bresco v Lonsdale. In this case, Cannon and Primus had already participated in an adjudication, with the decision of the adjudicator favouring Primus. Primus would later enter into a Company Voluntary Arrangement.

The CVA was made on the basis that, although Primus was insolvent at the time, it would be able to satisfy its creditors if it were able to recover from Cannon and other third parties through litigation and adjudication. This was preferable to liquidation.

On February 4, 2019, the Court of Appeal of Quebec released its decision in the matter of Callidus Capital Corporation and al. v.9354-9186 Québec Inc. (formerly Bluberi Gaming Technologies Inc.).

Le 4 février 2019, la Cour d'appel du Québec a rendu sa décision dans l'affaire Callidus Capital Corporation et al. c. 9354-9186 Québec Inc.