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:
El Tribunal Supremo aborda la cuestión relativa al tratamiento concursal de los créditos por la indemnización derivada de la extinción del contrato de trabajo por incumplimientos graves del empleador, cuando la sentencia se dicta en momento posterior a la declaración del concurso.
Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo de fecha 13 de julio de 2016 >>
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.
El nuevo sistema de subastas judiciales electrónicas continúa perfeccionándose tras varios meses desde su implantación en toda España, ofreciendo notables diferencias con respecto a las antiguas subastas presenciales.
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.
El Tribunal Supremo ha aclarado en una reciente sentencia, de fecha 8 de junio de 2016, el orden de pago que corresponde a los honorarios de la administración concursal cuando la masa activa es insuficiente para el abono de la totalidad de los créditos contra la masa. Se distingue, a tal efecto, entre los que resultan estrictamente necesarios para hacer líquidos los activos del concursado y para gestionar el pago, de los que no tienen tal carácter.
Facts
Longmeade went into compulsory liquidation. The liquidators were advised that the company had a good claim against BIS. The liquidators has secured third party funding in respect of the claim, which if successful, would double the dividend for creditors. However, 99% by value of the creditors of the company opposed the commencement of an action against BIS. The position of the few remaining creditors was unclear. The liquidators applied to the court for directions as to whether to cause the Longmeade to pursue the claim.
Held