E: BW ESTATES LTD; RANDHAWA AND ANOTHER V TURPIN AND ANOTHER [2015] EWHC 517 (CH) (“RVT”)
This decision followed an application by creditors (“the Randhawas”) of BW Estates Ltd (“the Company”) against the administrators of the Company that their remuneration should be deemed excessive and either disallowed entirely or reduced to such extent as the court thought appropriate.
The Facts
The South East’s position as one of the more prosperous areas of the UK, in terms of both lifestyle and work looks set to continue, as demonstrated by the findings of Lambert Smith Hampton’s UK Vitality Index Report 2015 in which Guildford came out as the top destination in the UK, with other cities in the region dominating the list.
As reported in our briefing last week, the European Court of Justice has delivered its judgment in the case of Union of Shop, Distributive & Allied Workers (USDAW) and another v WW Realisation 1 Ltd (in liquidation) and others (C–80/14) in relation to long running claims brought by former employees of national retailers Woolworths and Ethel Austin, which arose out of the administration and closure of all of their retail stores. The ECJ had to consider the meaning of “establishment” in the legislation, which triggers an obligation to undertake collective consultation when an employe
TECHNICAL UPDATE - APRIL 2015
The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (“the Act”), which received Royal Assent on 26 March 2015, contains a number of changes and additions to the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”).
A summary of the changes, as they relate to insolvency proceedings, are highlighted below but for full details as to the newest additions to the IA 1986, please see s117 to s146 of the Act which can be located at:
In a High Court decision this week it was held that there is no general duty on a solicitor to check the credit status of the seller in a conveyancing transaction unless expressly instructed.
The judgment also provides a useful analysis of the extent to which a solicitor should advise a client regarding the risks of a particular transaction generally, not just in the context of conveyancing.
Facts
In this two part guide we will be looking at issues that frequently arise when considering whether a professional indemnity policy responds to a claim against a construction professional.
In Part 1 we consider whether there is cover. In particular:
- Prior claims – when will a “new” claim fall within an existing notification?
- The obligation to notify circumstances
- Aggregation
- Insolvency of the Insured
Prior claims
Earlier this year, the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) published its consultation on the second PPF Levy Triennium (2015/16 to 2017/18) which proposed wholesale changes to the measure of insolvency risk and significant changes in respect of contingent assets and the PPF’s treatment of asset-backed contributions.
As we await the outcome of the consultation, employers and trustees may find a summary of the proposals helpful in trying to gauge how they could impact their scheme’s PPF levy.
The PPF-specific insolvency risk model
Following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Game it is necessary to consider the effect of the court’s decision on the treatment of rents in administration and by analogy liquidation – and the potential consequences of that change.
What types of insolvency does the decision affect?
The Court of Appeal’s decision explicitly states that it is applicable as to the treatment of rents in both administration and liquidation.
What about existing cases?
Michael John Andrew Jervis v Pillar Denton Limited (Game Station) and others [2013] EWHC 2171 (Ch) (“Game”)
Game has come to the courts against the background of two previous High Court decisions on the treatment of lease rents in administration. Recent decisions on this point have arisen out of cases where landlords made claims for rent in the administration of tenant companies.
In a recent judgment, HHJ Cooke found in favour of the defendant solicitors in a claim by the Trustees in Bankruptcy of Clifford Shore that Irwin Mitchell had failed properly to advise Mr Shore as to the risk of pursuing litigation that was subject to limitation arguments.
Kevin Hellard, Amanda Wade v Irwin Mitchell [2013] EWHC 3008 (Ch)
Background