Judgments on claims for fraudulent trading (s 213 Insolvency Act 1986) do not come along every day: they are hard to make good. A recent example is, however, that of Charles Morrison (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) in Bouchier & Anor v Booth & Anor [2023] EWHC 3195 (Ch). It runs to 281 paragraphs and covers a wide range of law and fact.

Over the decade since the implementation of the costs reforms proposed in Lord Jackson's Review of Civil Litigation Costs, lawyers and litigants have become accustomed to the courts actively managing the costs of disputes with a value up to £10 million. But the court also retains a discretion to apply the costs management regime in cases even above this level.

The Court of Appeal recently considered when precisely a company had given a preference within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1986 – a question of timing which may impact on whether an insolvency practitioner can later unwind the preferential treatment for the benefit of creditors as a whole.

Here we look at what a preference is, and when it is deemed to be given.

Preferences

The judgment of Chief ICC Judge Briggs in Re Zhang Zhenxin (Deceased); Eternity Sky Investments Ltd v The Estate of Zhang Zhenxin (Deceased) and Anor [2023] EWHC 2744 (Ch) is of interest because, as the judge himself remarked, there is little authority on the appointments of interim receivers in cases of individual insolvency; and for that matter there is little on the administration of the estates of deceased insolvents, that being the condition of the debtor in this case.

If an employer intends to make 20 or more employees redundant, at one establishment, within a 90-day period, they must notify the Secretary of State at least 30 days before the first dismissal, as per Section 193(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“TULRCA”). Failure to adhere to this requirement is a criminal offence. This legislation has been of great concern to insolvency practitioners who are often dealing with companies in a precarious position and do not have the luxury of time to comply with Section 193(2) TULRCA.

On 1 November 2023, the Supreme Court has overturned the 2021 Divisional Court judgment in R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and another to hold that administrators do not fall within the meaning of a "director, manager, secretary or similar officer of the company" under s194(3) the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULCRA 1992).

The economies of the United States (U.S.) and Canada are closely intertwined. As operations expand across the border, so too do the complexities associated with carrying on business - particularly the insolvency of a company spanning both jurisdictions. As such, understanding how to navigate the complexities of Canadian insolvency regimes is essential to successfully doing business in the country.

ICC Judge Mullen’s decision in Sunset Ltd & Anor v Al-Hindi [2023] EWHC 2443 (Ch) emphasises the importance of ensuring the existence of a debt capable of forming the basis of a bankruptcy petition at the time of presentation.

The petition in this case was presented against Mr Al-Hindi by Sunset Limited and Morville Limited on 23 June 2022 based on his failure to comply with statutory demands dated 29 March 2022 claiming £248,750 said to be due by way of unpaid rent under leases of four London properties.

In Secretary of State for Business, Energy And Industrial Strategy v Barnsby [2022] EWHC 971 (Ch) ICC Judge Barber imposed a seven year disqualification period on the defendant arising out of his conduct as a director of Pure Zanzibar Ltd. Her latest judgment in the same case ([2023] EWHC 2284 (Ch)) deals with the Secretary of State’s claim for a compensation order under section 15A Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

Canadian insolvency law currently offers little protection to perishable fruits and vegetable suppliers (Produce Supplier) in the event of an insolvency or bankruptcy of a purchaser of such products.