In Tiuta International Limited (in liquidation) v De Villiers Surveyors Limited [2017] UKSC 77 the Supreme Court reminded us that the measure of damages is that which is required to restore the claimant as nearly as possible to the position that he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong.
The Court of Appeal overturns the High Court decision concerning an ATE insurance policy lacking anti-avoidance provisions as adequate security for costs.
Case Alert - [2017] EWCA Civ 1872
Court of Appeal orders security for costs where ATE insurance policy did not contain an anti-avoidance provision
Court of Appeal sets out test for whether defendant has assets for a freezing order application and considers the impact of delay in applying
High Court holds that an Insolvency Exclusion applies in respect of a claim under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (“1930 Act”) and awards summary judgment accordingly but declines to provide much-needed guidance on insurers’ liability in the case of claims partially settled by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (“FSCS”).
Case Alert ‐ [2017] EWHC 2597 (Comm)
Court confirms insurance policy exclusions are not construed narrowly/scope of an insolvency clause
The claimants brought a claim under the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930 against the professional indemnity insurers of their financial adviser. The adviser gave allegedly negligent investment advice in respect of bonds issued by a company which then went into liquidation (and so defaulted on payments due to the claimants).
Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council: Supreme Court again considers the nature of the relationship required to find a defendant vicariously liable
In this article the authors consider the practical aspects of the UK-wide rules for registration of company charges, including features of the new e-filing regime. Statute references are to the Companies Act 2006.
WHY REGISTER?
SAW (SW) 2010 Ltd & Anor v Wilson & Ors [2017] EWCA Cif 1001 (25 July 2017)
The Court of Appeal has held that the validity of a floating charge (and the appointment of joint administrators under that floating charge pursuant to paragraph 14 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986) does not depend on the existence of uncharged assets of the company at the time of its creation, nor upon the power of the company to acquire assets in the future.
BACKGROUND
Randhawa & Anor v Turpin & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 1201
In a fascinating (and very readable) judgment, the Court of Appeal has held the appointment of joint administrators made under paragraph 22 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") to be invalid because, among other things, the appointment was made following an inquourate board meeting. Readers are encouraged to read the judgment, as the following is merely an overview of the facts and conclusions.
BACKGROUND