This case concerned both the appeal in Bresco v Lonsdale and Cannon Corporate v Primus Build. The present case comment is only concerned with the former.
Background
Bresco appealed to set aside the order of an injunction from Fraser J. That injunction prevented the continuation of an adjudication in which Bresco and Lonsdale (in liquidation) sought sums from each other in claims and cross-claims.
Introduction
The recent decision of Andrew Burrows QC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, in Palliser Limited v Fate Limited (In Liquidation) [2019] EWHC 43 (QB), is a useful reminder of the difficulties that can arise where one party (here a tenant) relies on another (its landlord) to take out insurance.
The Facts
In 2010, a fire started at the ground floor restaurant owned and operated by a company called Fate Limited (“Fate”). It was not in dispute that the fire was caused by Fate’s negligence.
Re SHB Realisation Ltd (formerly BHS Ltd); Wright and another (as joint liquidators of SHB Realisations Ltd (formerly BHS Ltd)) v Prudential Assurance Companies Ltd [2018] EWHC 402 (Ch); [2018] All ER (D) 58 (Mar)
Synopsis
Daniel Gatty discusses the recent High Court ruling in Leon v Her Majesty’s Attorney General and others [2018] EWHC 3026 (Ch) and its impact on the grant of vesting orders following the disclaimer of a lease.
Readers of this column will be aware of the complications that can ensue when a lease is disclaimed by a tenant’s liquidator under section 178 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), by a tenant’s trustee in bankruptcy under section 315 of the IA 1986 or by the Crown under section 1013 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) following dissolution of a tenant company.
This is the third occasion on which I have posted on this blog on the issue of after the event insurance (ATE) policies and the impact which they have on applications for security for costs.
In the first post on 16 November 2017, I praised the judgment of Snowden J in Premier Motorauctions v Pricewaterhouse Coopers for appearing to bring clarity to an area which had for some time struggled with near irreconcilable decisions.
En una reciente resolución, la DGRN trata de equilibrar el necesario rigor que debe presidir nuestro sistema registral con la adecuada agilidad y seguridad jurídica que requieren los adquirentes de bienes cuando se ha declarado la insolvencia.
La Dirección General de los Registros y del Notariado (DGRN) ha relajado los requisitos de inscripción de los bienes adquiridos durante el procedimiento concursal y, señaladamente, durante la fase de liquidación. Así lo señala en una resolución de 24 de octubre de 2018.
The DGRN is seeking to strike a balance between the necessary rigor that must prevail in the Spanish registration system and the legal certainty needed for the recipients of assets during insolvency proceedings.
In a decision rendered on October 24, 2018, the Directorate-General for Registers and the Notarial Profession (DGRN) relaxed the requirements for registration of assets acquired during insolvency proceedings, and specifically, during the liquidation phase.
Selección de las principales resoluciones en materia de Reestructuraciones e Insolvencias.
Nulidad de un despido colectivo realizado en la sucursal española de una sociedad sometida a un procedimiento de insolvencia alemán
Sentencia de la Sala de lo Social de la Audiencia Nacional de 30 de abril de 2018
Collective layoff voided at Spanish branch of a company subject to German insolvency proceedings
Judgment by the National Appellate Court (Labor Chamber) on April 30, 2018
An insolvency order by a German court on a company does not in itself authorize that company to carry out a collective layoff at its Spanish branch. The German company should have petitioned for a local insolvency proceeding on its Spanish branch to obtain authorization from the judge hearing the Spanish insolvency proceeding to conduct the collective layoff at its branch.
Can an adjudicator have jurisdiction over claims for sums owed to a referring party in liquidation? The TCC has decided in Lonsdale v Bresco that insolvency set-off precludes adjudication of such claims.
Background
Bresco had agreed to perform electrical installation works for Lonsdale in August 2014. Those works were not completed and both parties alleged wrongful termination. Bresco later became insolvent and entered into liquidation in March 2015.