Tamaya Resources Limited (In Liq) v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu [2016] FCAFC 2

It is common in large complex cases for plaintiffs to seek to amend their claims during the course of the litigation. A plaintiff may be required to pay the costs thrown away but if its amendment application was brought in good faith and with a proper explanation, it would usually be able to amend its claim.

1 April 2016 will see the insolvency profession fall in line with other civil litigation as the exemption which enabled the recoverability of CFA success fees and After the Event (ATE) insurance premiums from the unsuccessful party to litigation comes to an end. This recoverability was abolished in other civil litigation in April 2013, principally as one of a number of changes intended to control and reduce the costs of civil litigation.

In Sharma v Top Brands Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1140, the Court of Appeal refused to allow a former liquidator of a company (which was a vehicle for VAT fraud) to rely on the illegality defence to avoid liability for a claim brought against her for breach of duty under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).

Background

This month in Sharma v Top Brands Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1140 the Court of Appeal has again been asked to grapple with the question of when the illegality defence is available to defendants to actions brought by an insolvent company where the losses claimed are arguably tainted by the company's own fraudulent actions. In this instance the question for the court was whether the defence was available to a former liquidator of a company seeking to defend a claim brought against her for breach of duty under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).

Pre-Packs

The recent case of Oraki v Bramston and Defty [2015] EWHC 2046 (Ch) concerned former bankrupts' claims of professional negligence against their former trustees in bankruptcy (“the Trustees”). In dismissing the claims, the High Court held that the Trustees did not owe a common law duty of care to the bankrupts.

Patrick Hill and Declan Finn of DAC Beachcroft LLP, who acted on behalf of the successful Trustees, discuss the case and consider its implications for trustees in bankruptcy.

Background

On 14 July 2015, the South Australian District Court in Matthews v The Tap Inn Pty Ltd [2015] SADC 108 handed down a decision whose underlying reasoning could, if applied by superior courts around Australia, broaden the scope for liquidators to pursue unfair preference claims against secured creditors.

The decision

Several provisions of the Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which will come into force on 1 October 2015, are likely to have an impact on directors and their D&O insurers. The first key change is that administrators and liquidators will be able to assign insolvency claims, such as claims for wrongful trading, fraudulent trading and transactions at an undervalue, to third parties.

The UK Insolvency Service has powers to investigate directors' conduct, to commence directors' disqualification proceedings and to enter into disqualification undertakings.

In this case the High Court had to consider the mutual recognition provision in the EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive ("BRRD") and the Winding Up Directive for Banks (WUD) which provide for how the insolvency of EEA banks should be managed by member states.

This case highlights the different tensions that arise in the aftermath of the collapse of Banco Espirito Santo ("BES") between how creditors are treated under the BRRD and WUD and the flexibility given to central banks to restructure good and bad debts when a bank fails.