R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court [2021] EWHC 3013

The case of Palmer has confirmed that an insolvency practitioner in the role of an administrator can be prosecuted (and therefore personally liable) for a failure to follow correct redundancy procedures prescribed by s194 TULRCA.

Where an individual is found to have acted in breach of s194, they may be personally liable to an unlimited fine (or a fine of up to £5,000 if the offence is committed before 12 March 2015).

The facts

Part 1 of this article considered some of the checks and balances that apply when seeking access to one of the law’s most potent weapons, including the tests the applicant must satisfy, and exceptions that are commonly included in the order made by the court (see ‘Freezing orders: policing the nuclear option (Pt 1)’, NLJ, 7 & 14 January 2022, p15).

From 15 February 2022, the UK Insolvency Service is granted new powers to investigate and disqualify or prosecute directors of dissolved UK companies. The Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act (the Act) extends the Insolvency Service’s powers, on behalf of the UK Business Secretary, to deal with company directors who abuse the company dissolution process.

Despite calls upon the government to intervene and, later, attempts to sell the business, the South West construction firm Midas has collapsed into administration this week.

The collapse of the business has led to over 300 redundancies, though it is understood that a section of the business (Mi-Space) has been sold, saving over 50 jobs. Concerns have also been raised about the knock-on effort on sub-contractors and connected businesses, many of whom have been left out of pocket through unfulfilled contracts and unpaid invoices.

When the availability of bounceback loans was announced, it was heralded as the way for small businesses to quickly and easily access loans of between £2,000 and £50,000 during the COVID pandemic. Undoubtedly, it has helped a significant number of small businesses to weather the storm that COVID brought on many.

The judgment in the much-publicised case of Akhmedovav Akhmedov & Ors[i] in April 2021 is a telling example of where the English Courts have exercised wide-reaching statutory powers to set aside or vary dispositions on trust with extra-territorial effect, notwithstanding the assets are held by offshore trustees, outside the Court’s j

Introduction

For some time, the reliance on section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) as a "set-off" defence to an unfair preference claim, under section 588FA of the Act, has caused much controversy in the insolvency profession. Defendants of preference claims loved it, liquidators disliked it and the courts did not provide clear direction about its applicability – until now.

For some time, the reliance on section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) as a "set-off" defence to an unfair preference claim, under section 588FA of the Act, has caused much controversy in the insolvency profession. Defendants of preference claims loved it, liquidators disliked it and the courts did not provide clear direction about its applicability – until now.

Subject to exceptions, a director of a company that enters into liquidation is restricted from being involved in the management of a new or existing company (SecondCo) with the same or a sufficiently similar name to that of the liquidating company (section 216 Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986)). If in breach of s.216, a director will have personal liability for all the relevant debts SecondCo incurred during the period of the breach under s.217 IA 1986.