The Court of Appeal commenced its operations on 5 November 2014.
The reason for the establishment of the Court of Appeal was the huge backlog which had built up in the Supreme Court, where it could take up to four and a half years for a case to be heard.
Mr. Justice Sean Ryan is President of the Court which is comprised of nine judges in addition to the President. Six of these nine positions were filled by previous High Court Judges such as Mr. Justice Kelly, Ms. Justice Finlay Geoghegan and Mr. Justice Peart.
Recent decisions in the Ontario courts have brought this issue to the forefront, which is salient during this time of economic uncertainty for the oil industry and its related environmental obligations. The courts have had to focus on balancing competing public interests: those of creditors and the general health and safety of the public when a debtor has an outstanding obligation to remediate its pollution.
Insolvency practitioners often encounter difficulties when trying to sell properties in residential developments because an original management company has been struck off the Register of Companies. The standard approach can be laborious and costly. A more cost efficient alternative is often available.
In a number of recent cases, borrowers have produced a detailed forensic analysis of the accrual of interest on their accounts by lenders alleging that any error in the calculation of interest invalidates the demand made by the lender and any appointment of a receiver on foot thereof.
The State Airports (Shannon Group) Act 2014 (the “Aviation Act”) came into force on 27 July 2014. The Aviation Act enhances Ireland’s position as a global centre for aviation finance and leasing by, among other things, introducing important reforms in the Shannon Region which will build upon the existing aviation industry of over 40 companies operating in the area.
On 13 August 2014, the Irish High Court gave a judgment which addresses significant issues in examinerships and provides some clarity regarding loan acquisitions and the timing and other considerations for creditors when issuing letters of demand.
Background
The doctrine of federal paramountcy provides that where there is an inconsistency between validly enacted but overlapping provincial and federal legislation, the provincial legislation is inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency and the remainder of the provincial legislation is unaffected.
A recent decision at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) brought to the fore the role of fairness opinions in solvent arrangement transactions. In Re ChampionIron Mines Limited (Champion) the court approved the arrangement but deemed the fairness opinion inadmissible on the basis that it failed to disclose the reasons underlying its conclusion.
Insolvency practitioners are routinely asked to adjudicate on claims to retention of title of goods supplied. This task often involves an analysis of whether the goods in question have become fixed to land, irreversibly mixed with other goods or whether they remain as identifiable items.
In the recent case of Re Moormac Developments Limited (in receivership)[1], the High Court gave further clarity to this area of the law.
In Susi v. Bourke, 2014 O.J. No. 11
A Summary
In Susi v. Bourke, [2014] OJ No 11, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that when all of the directors of a corporation fail to comply with their fiduciary duties, none of them can seek a remedy for oppression.