A fundamental consideration when embarking on any litigation is whether the defendant will be able to pay. In most cases, this is really a question of whether the defendant is insured (although in some cases a defendant may be uninsured and yet still have the means to pay).

What happens if the defendant is insolvent?

On 1 October 2017, the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (Protocol) will come into force. It will apply to all debt claims where:

• the creditor is a business (including sole traders and public bodies)
• the debtor is an individual (including sole traders), and
• no other specialised Protocol applies.

Why is this new Protocol being introduced?

The express purpose of the new Protocol is to:

Breyer Group Plc v RBK Engineering Ltd

The High Court's recent judgment in Breyer Group Plc v RBK Engineering Limited [2017] EWHC 1206 provides a timely reminder for parties to construction contracts of the appropriate (and inappropriate) uses of winding-up petitions.

The case concerned a successful application made by Breyer Group PLC (Breyer) for an order preventing RBK Engineering Limited (RBK) from continuing with a petition to wind up Breyer on the basis of a disputed debt.

How did the dispute arise?

In summary:

In Randhawa and Randhawa v Turpin and Hardy [2017] the Court of Appeal considered the comparatively simple question of whether the sole director of a company with articles that required two directors for a board meeting to be quorate, could validly appoint administrators under paragraph 22(2) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (paragraph 22(2)). The complicating feature was that, whilst 75% of the shares in the company were held by the sole director, the remaining 25% were registered in the name of a long-dissolved Manx company.

Background

Claimant Litigant in Person recovers 150 per hour for his time

Spencer and another v Paul Jones Financial Services Ltd (unreported), 6 January 2017 (Senior Courts Costs Office)

Summary

A claimant litigant in person can recover costs at his typical hourly rate (150). Whilst the burden of proving such financial loss lies on the claimant, the burden is not impossibly high.

Facts

Summary: Political uncertainty, increasing inflation, threat of interest rate rises and insecurity of overseas investment. Should real estate lenders remind themselves of the enforcement available if things go awry? Much has changed since the 2008 financial crisis; much for the better. In this article we look at the main enforcement options and suggest some factors that could result in a new approach to restructuring and enforcing real estate loans.

Enforcement Options

The opening of the retail water market next month (April 2017) will change the water sector on a fundamental level with most businesses in England being able to choose their preferred suppliers. There is no doubt that the opening of the market presents both opportunities and risks for water suppliers. The already low margins in the industry will naturally be squeezed through competition, but the race for new business could also drive behaviours that further damage suppliers' profitability.

Potential pitfalls of contracting in the new market

Summary: The Insolvency Rules 2016 will come into force on 6 April 2017. This article highlights some of the main areas of change.

The long awaited Insolvency Rules 2016 (the “2016 Rules”) were laid before Parliament on 25 October 2016, and will come into force on 6 April 2017. The Insolvency Rules 1986 (the “1986 Rules”) and all amending legislation will be repealed. The 2016 Rules aim to:

September 2016

Commercial Litigation

Can a conflicting email and attachment regarding settlement amount to an acceptance, or does it constitute a counter offer?

Summary

In an appeal from the County Court, regarding the forfeiture of a lease, the High Court confirmed that a purported acceptance of a settlement offer was actually a counter offer. In suggesting an alternative payment date, the company had made a counter offer which the other party had not accepted.

Background

The case of Burnden Holdings (UK) Limited (in liquidation) v (1) Gary John Fielding (2) Sally Anne Fielding [2016] determined whether a claim in respect of breach of duty against two directors of Burnden Holdings (UK) Limited (Burnden) was time-barred. The alleged breach of duty was in connection with a distribution in specie. The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision and held that section 21 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) applied so that the claim was not subject to the usual period of limitation.