In Beijing Tong Gang Da Sheng Trade Co., Ltd (as assignee of Greater Beijing Region Expressways Limited) v Allen & Overy & Anor, FACV 2, 3, 4 and 5 of 2016, the Court of Final Appeal held that the addition or substitution of a party to an action amounts to a “new claim”, as defined in section 35(2) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347)) and would not therefore be permitted after the relevant limitation period had expired, unless it came within the rules of court as required under Section 35(3) and (5) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347).

You will have previously seen a landlord's consent is usually required to enable a pharmacist to assign or sell their lease to a third party.

It is usual for the landlord's consent to be specified not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

On a lease assignment a landlord will want to ensure that the tenant is of sufficient financial strength to be able to comply with the lease covenants (including payment of the rent).

This is the third in a series of articles highlighting the changes to be brought in by the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 (Amendment Ordinance). Since our last article, 13 February 2017 has been announced as the date when the Amendment Ordinance will come into effect. The Amendment Ordinance makes amendments to the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (CWUMPO) and the Companies (Winding Up) Rules (CWUR).

In Re Hin-Pro International Logistics Ltd, CACV 54/2016, the Court of Appeal upheld the Court of First Instance (CFI) decision that the courtdoes have jurisdiction to grant leave to amend a creditor’s winding-up petition, to include debts accruedafter its presentation. The company had been granted leave to appeal the CFI decision to enable the Court of Appeal to consider whether the rule in Eshelby v Federated European Bank Ltd [1932] 1 KB 254 (the Eshelby Rule), still applied.

This is the second in a series of articles highlighting the changes to be brought in by the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 (Amendment Ordinance), which was gazetted on 3 June 2016 and will come into effect on a date to be appointed by the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury.

On 30 September 2016, the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) published its finding that two companies involved in the online retail of licensed sport and entertainment posters and frames had breached the Competition Act 1998 (“CA98”) by entering into agreements (or, at least, ‘concerted practices’) to artificially inflate the prices charged for certain products. A formal charge was accepted by the main protagonist, Trod Limited (in administration) (“Trod”) and fines imposed, which became payable by Trod’s administrators as of 13 October 2016.

Horton v Henry: Pensions clarified

We previously discussed the uncertainty surrounding the treatment of pensions in a bankruptcy which arose from two conflicting high court decisions: Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch) and Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch).

In Hinton v Wotherspoon [2016] EWHC 623 (CH) (where this firm successfully represented the trustee in bankruptcy, Lloyd Hinton of Insolve Plus Limited), the court commented that the approach in Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch) was “plainly correct”.

The Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 (Amendment Ordinance), gazetted on 3 June 2016, will come into effect on a date to be appointed by the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury. It amends the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, Cap 32. This article is the first in a series, highlighting the major changes to be introduced.

Aims of Amendment Ordinance

The Amendment Ordinance aims to:

When Cayman Islands funds undergo liquidity stress on their balance sheet due to holding illiquid assets or irregular large redemption requests, directors of Cayman Islands funds generally consider mechanics to provide for an orderly restructure to meet redemption requests which arise. Common arrangements are to implement a “redemption gate” which limits redemptions to a certain percentage of shares in the fund or a stronger response such as a suspension of all redemptions.

Bailey v Angove’s Pty Ltd [2016] UKSC Civ 47

SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in this case had to consider whether an agent’s authority to accept payments had been ended by the principal’s termination of the agency agreement or if the agent’s authority was irrevocable in spite of the termination notice and permitted the agent to receive remaining payments due from customers for goods supplied during the term of the agreement.

BACKGROUND