Facts
C’s appeal of his bankruptcy order failed. He then argued that pursuant to r 12.2(1) of the Insolvency Rules 1986 (‘IR 12.2’) as a matter of law the costs of the unsuccessful appeal should be treated as an expense of the bankruptcy estate; alternatively they were aprovable debt in the bankruptcy. D (the PC) contended that IR 7.51A gave the court an unfettered discretion as to the form of order and sought costs against C personally as a post-bankruptcy liability.
This article was first published in Practical Law.
With the long-awaited decision of the Court of Appeal in Horton v Henry, the Looking Glass decision in Raithatha v Williamson is finally laid to rest.
1. Introduction
The Insolvency Rules 2016 (“the 2016 Rules”) were published and laid before parliament on 25 October 2016. The rules will come in to force on 6 April 2017. The following note summarises the key features of the rules. For further detail the reader is referred to the following sources:
Finally a decision on whether a bankrupt can be compelled to draw down a pension: The Court of Appeal has finally handed down its long-awaited judgment in Horton v Henry [2016] EWCA Civ. 989, the case determining whether a Trustee in Bankruptcy can compel a Bankrupt to draw down his pension even though the pension is not in payment because the Bankrupt has elected not to call it down.
Agriculture is a long-term business and most people within the sector are proud of its reputation for straight talking and fair dealing. Debt issues can arise at any stage, but there are particular cyclical problems at the moment which mean that there is more debt-chasing activity, as cashflow pressures intensify.
Angel Group Ltd and others concerned a group of companies in Administration where the director asserted that the companies’ bank had “conspired to artificially distress the business”
The facts
In the case of Angel Group Ltd and others [2015] EWHC 3624, Administrators from KPMG were appointed to Angel Group Limited and to seven of its subsidiaries. The Bank of Scotland was the only secured creditor, and was owed a residual balance of £20 million.
The High Court has determined the circumstances in which sums drawn down under a self-investment personal pension scheme could be subject to an income payments order.
The background
Original news
Goldcrest Distribution Limited v McCole and others [2016] EWHC 1571 (Ch)
What is the background to this case?
The claimant lender, C, sought possession of residential property owned jointly by D1 and his partner D2 (the property) pursuant to a purported legal charge entered into by both the D1 and D2 (the charge). The charge secured D1’s liability to C arising under a guarantee whereby D1 had guaranteed the indebtedness of his company, "Ascot" to C.
A version of this article was first published in The Law Society Gazette and Prime Resi.
The actuary is not required to consider the security of benefits where a bulk transfer without member consents is proposed, the Court has decided.
A transfer without consent cannot be made unless the actuary certifies that, in their opinion, the past service rights each member will be credited with in the receiving scheme will be "broadly no less favourable" than their rights in the transferring scheme.