R (on the application of Palmer) (Appellant) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court and another (Respondents) [2023] UKSC 38
On appeal from: [2021] EWHC 3013
There have been many reported cases in the bankruptcies of Mr and Mrs Brake (the “Brakes”) including the recent case of Patley Wood Farm LLP v Kicks [2023] EWCA Civ 901 where the Court of Appeal considered an application under s303 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA 1986”) against a decision of the trustees in bankruptcy of the Brakes (the “Trustees”).
The Supreme Court’s judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and ors[1] (“Sequana”) is a key decision on the law surrounding directors’ duties.
The High Court was required to consider the Supreme Court’s Sequana judgment in Hunt v Singh (below).
What did we learn from Sequana?
Why calculating potential claims under s214 Insolvency Act 1986 can be far from simple
Introduction
Commonwealth of Australia v Tonks [2023] NSWCA 285
In this decision, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of NSW considered the interplay between the priority regimes under ss 556 and 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) in resolving a contest between a liquidator’s claim for remuneration and the entitlements of former employees to be paid out of circulating assets.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the first instance decision of Justice Black in finding that:
In the recent case of Brake & Anor v Chedington Court Estate Limited [2023] UKSC 29, the Supreme Court has clarified the categories of persons who have standing to make a challenge to the conduct of a trustee in bankruptcy under s303 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”). The Supreme Court confirmed that its decision will also apply to creditors and others seeking to challenge the actions of a liquidator under s168(5) of the Act. The decision will be welcomed by practitioners.
Summary
Trustees in bankruptcy can often come up against challenges in dealing with obstructive bankrupts. A bankrupt might ignore communications and requests for interview, fail to disclose information about their assets, or provide partial cooperation which fails to offer any substantive assistance.
Case Name & Citation
Greylag Goose Leasing 1410 Designated Activity Company v P.T. Garuda Indonesia Ltd [2023] NSWCA 134 per Bell CJ, Meagher JA, Kirk JA
Hyperlink
Date of Judgment
14 June 2023
Issues