We all know that statutory demand can be issued for undisputed debts in excess of £750, and if not satisfied for 21 days, the stat demand is prima facie evidence of insolvency. What happens where there are multiple dents of less than £750 each however? Howell v Lerwick Commercial Mortgage Corporation Ltd [2015] EWHC 1177 (Ch) provides an insight.

The background

In September 2013 we reported on the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 which provided the Government with the power to extend the law regarding the supply of essential services to insolvent customers. These reforms were anticipated to come into force in April 2014. It has now been announced that the changes will come into force on 1 October 2015.

Extension of essential supplies

In Mark Howell v Lerwick Commercial Mortgage Corporation Limited, the High Court has held that statutory demands will not necessarily be set aside if the undisputed debt is less than £750, where there other debts which would take the cumulative total over this limit.

Facts

Mr Howell obtained finance from Lerwick in 2010 to develop a property and paid £2,750 to Lerwick to obtain a valuation. Mr Howell claimed that the valuation provided was sub-standard, and as a result there were delays in the development and its subsequent sale.

In Winnington Networks Communications Ltd v HMRC^[1], the Chancery Division Companies Court (Nicholas Le Poidevin QC) refused the taxpayer company's application to have HMRC's winding-up petitions dismissed, as it had failed to provide evidence that it had a real prospect of successfully disputing the debt claimed by HMRC.

Background

The Tribunal has upheld HMRC's decision that a company (Danesmoor Ltd) should not be entitled to recover input VAT incurred on professional fees for a corporate restructuring. HMRC had not allowed the recovery of the input VAT on the grounds that the services were not provided to the company. The appellant argued that the advisors had been engaged and paid for by the company directly in connection with the restructuring and as such the input VAT should be recoverable.

In Smailes and another v McNally and another^[i]the High Court refused the claimant's application for relief from sanctions, finding the claimant's failure in respect of its disclosure obligations under the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 31) amounted to a significant and serious breach of an "unless order".

On 22 April 2015 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23, which was heard in October last year.  In short it decided that: 1) defendant directors cannot raise illegality as a defence to a claim by a company where the directors themselves acted wrongfully; and 2) a claim in fraudulent trading under Section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Section 213)has extra-territorial effect.

Background

Recent weeks have seen a number of decisions concerning liquidations – in this article we explore three of the more interesting ones.

1)  Overseas application of s.213 - Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23

The past three months have seen the publication of a spate of forthcoming regulatory and legislative changes. In this bulletin we investigate some of the more significant developments.

Insolvency Act 1986 (Amendment) Order 2015 – threshold for bankruptcy petitions

This order, which comes into effect on 1 October 2015, makes amendments to section 267(4) IA 1986, increasing the threshold for bankruptcy petitions to £5,000 (currently £750).

In SwissMarineCorporation Ltd v OW Supply & Trading[1], the High Court refused to grant an anti-suit injunction restraining Danish insolvency proceedings. This case provides a useful discussion of the circumstances in which the court are likely to grant an anti-suit injunction, and in particular where there are jurisdiction issues involving elements of both civil and insolvency proceedings.