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”.

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

FACTS:

InHinton v Wotherspoon [2016] EWHC 623 (CH), Jason Freedman and Aziz Abdul successfully secured an Income Payments Order (“IPO”) on behalf of the Trustee in Bankruptcy.

The court also provided useful guidance on the correct position where a bankrupt has made an election to draw down from his private pension but not given specific instructions as to application of the funds.

LEGAL BACKGROUND:

Padwick Properties Limited v Punj Lloyd Limited [2016] EWHC 502 (Ch)

FACTS

This case concerned a property in Stockport let at an annual rent of £784,268, where Padwick was landlord to a company named SCL. The defendant had guaranteed SCL's performance of its obligations.

I HAVE REQUESTED MY LANDLORD’S CONSENT TO SELL MY PHARMACY LEASE. THE LANDLORD HAS AGREED TO THE SALE BUT ON THE CONDITION THAT I AM A GUARANTOR FOR THE BUYER. IS THIS A REQUIREMENT UNDER MY LEASE?

The answer will depend on the terms of your lease. However, as a general rule, it is likely to be the case that the landlord can request such a guarantee.

Can’t get no satisfaction? Sometimes you can! Would you prefer to have security to cover a debt or the cash in the bank, challenges?

Obtaining Decree

In most circumstances, court proceedings will need to be raised by creditors to recover outstanding sums owed. Depending on the amount due, the action will be a Small Claim (up to and including £3,000) a Summary Cause (over £3,000 and up to and including £5,000) or an Ordinary Action (over £5,000). 

After obtaining a Decree (or judgement in England) there are a number of steps that can be taken, if the debtor does not make payment, to recover the outstanding debt. In Scotland this process is known as “diligence”. 

It was anticipated that more radical thoughts would emerge from Lord Justice Jackson’s latest speech last night to the Insolvency Practitioners’ Association on the subject of rolling out more fixed costs, and so it proved.

In the case of Bibby Factors Northwest Limited v HFD Limited and MCD Group Limited the Court of Appeal has ruled that there is ordinarily no duty on a company whose debt has been purchased (the Debtor) to inform the purchasing company (the Funder) of any pre-existing contractual arrangements it has with the company assigning the debt (the Assignor).  If the Funder wants this information it must directly request it.

Implications