‘Visit England’ promotes tourism to England and Wales by reference to the beautiful scenery, world-class museums and abundance of culture on offer. Following the recent judgment of JSC Bank of Moscow v Kekhman & Ors [2015] EWHC 396 (Ch) (Kekhman), it should consider adding an advantageous personal insolvency regime to this list. 

Bankruptcy remains the most well-known, and perhaps most feared, of the personal insolvency processes. Since the current threshold was introduced 30 years ago, it has been used by creditors owed as little as £750 as a dire threat to extract payment from reluctant debtors. However, the Government has stepped in and is squeezing the bankruptcy process, seeking to ensure bankruptcy is reserved for the most appropriate cases and encouraging alternative regimes for the management of small debts.

In a challenging economy bankruptcy increasingly stands accused of constituting a mechanism for debtors to escape their responsibilities at their creditors' expense. It understandably remains a live debate as to whether a bankrupt should be afforded the means of a protected pot of money for his future use while his creditors are left unrecompensed for their loss. The debate is not new, but the balance has perhaps shifted in a climate where creditor losses are felt particularly keenly.

The BIS and Scottish Affairs Commons Select Committees have published a joint report recommending greater protection for workers when a business is faced with insolvency. The report was issued in response to the recent collapse of City Link (The impact of the closure of City Link on Employment).

In Re Mark Irwin Forstater [2015] BPIR, the petitioning creditor presented a bankruptcy petition against the debtor, Mr Forstater, on 13 June 2014. It first came before the court on 30 July 2014, when it was adjourned to allow the  debtor to take legal advice. At the adjourned hearing on 12 August 2014, the debtor indicated that he intended to pursue an IVA. The hearing was adjourned again to await the outcome of a meeting of creditors. The meeting of creditors was itself adjourned for 14 days from 1 September 2014 to 15 September 2014.

Income payments orders (IPOs) are an essential tool for the trustee in bankruptcy in realising a bankrupt’s assets. Until recently, it had been assumed that, absent circumstances akin to fraud, a trustee in bankruptcy could not touch a bankrupt’s undrawn pension. However, in Raithatha v Williamson, the court decided that an income payments order may be made where the bankrupt has an entitlement to elect to draw a pension but has not exercised it at the time of the application. 

Drawn versus undrawn

In January 2015, the Government published legislation which proposes to increase the level of debt necessary for a creditor to present a bankruptcy petition to £5,000 from 1 October 2015 (Draft Insolvency Act 1986 (Amendment) Order 2015). This represents a significant increase on the current law which allows a petition to be presented on a debt of just £750. It has apparently been proposed to dissuade creditors from using this arguably aggressive mechanism to collect relatively low level debts.

Debt Relief Orders

Costs are the price that creditors pay for an insolvency practitioner’s (“IP”) expertise and time in dealing with a trading bankrupt or insolvent business. However, where the assets are insufficient to meet the existing debts, the imposition of a practitioner’s fees and expenses being paid out in priority can send some “over the edge” and all practitioners have the scars to prove it. This article explores the developing general principles and major pitfalls and how to avoid them.

The Court of Appeal’s ruling in Neumans LLP v Andrew Andronikou & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 916 has provided some useful guidance to insolvency practitioners on the courts’ approach to administration and liquidation expenses.

Pre-match warm up

Following the announcement that Crystal Palace Football Club had gone into administration in January 2010, the club's administrator wanted to sell the club as a going concern. Shortly after he  signed a sale and purchase agreement with the newly formed Crystal Palace Football Consortium (CPFC) he discovered that the club had severe financial problems and decided to 'mothball' the club during the out of season period, in the hope of selling it in the future. However CPFC then decided to withdraw its offer for the club and on 28 May 2010 the four claimants were made redundant.