This article was first published in Practical Law.
With the long-awaited decision of the Court of Appeal in Horton v Henry, the Looking Glass decision in Raithatha v Williamson is finally laid to rest.
1. Introduction
The Insolvency Rules 2016 (“the 2016 Rules”) were published and laid before parliament on 25 October 2016. The rules will come in to force on 6 April 2017. The following note summarises the key features of the rules. For further detail the reader is referred to the following sources:
Facts: The appellants were brothers who had incorporated a company (the “Corporation”) which was, in January 2008, involuntarily dissolved for failure to file corporate tax returns as required. In 2014, the minister issued an assessment under section 160 Notice of Assessment against the appellants.
Finally a decision on whether a bankrupt can be compelled to draw down a pension: The Court of Appeal has finally handed down its long-awaited judgment in Horton v Henry [2016] EWCA Civ. 989, the case determining whether a Trustee in Bankruptcy can compel a Bankrupt to draw down his pension even though the pension is not in payment because the Bankrupt has elected not to call it down.
The Ontario Court of Appeal in Meridian Credit Union Limited v Baig1 made it clear that misinforming a receiver during the purchase of a property, even by omission, will not be tolerated. Purchasers in the context of a receivership have an obligation to ensure that the receiver is aware of all of the facts. The court also took the opportunity to remind corporate directors that they will be held personally responsible for their tortious conduct, even if that conduct was directed in a bona fide manner to the best interests of the company.
In Walchuk v. Houghton, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the stay of all proceedings against a bankrupt pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act applies to a contempt motion brought by a judgment creditor where the contempt arises after the bankruptcy.
The much-debated and closely-monitored Re Redwater Energy Corp.
Original news
Goldcrest Distribution Limited v McCole and others [2016] EWHC 1571 (Ch)
What is the background to this case?
The claimant lender, C, sought possession of residential property owned jointly by D1 and his partner D2 (the property) pursuant to a purported legal charge entered into by both the D1 and D2 (the charge). The charge secured D1’s liability to C arising under a guarantee whereby D1 had guaranteed the indebtedness of his company, "Ascot" to C.