Introduction
The recent Supreme Court decision in Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Nazir and others has provided office holders with greater (but not final) clarity on the operation of the ‘illegality defence’.
Many readers will be familiar with the concept of the illegality defence, otherwise referred to by the maxim “ex turpi causa non oritur actio”. It is a rule of law which provides that a claimant cannot rely on its own wrongdoing to found a claim against another party.
RE: HARVEST FINANCE LTD; JACKSON & ANOTHER V CANNONS LAW PRACTICE LLP & OTHERS [2014]
This case concerns the provision of documentation under s236 IA 1986. The documentation requested by the liquidators was extensive and the Respondents wished to claim their time costs (£40,381) of providing the same. The Court held that whilst it was within the Court’s jurisdiction to make an order for costs against the insolvent estate, it was not minded to do so in this case.
The Facts
ASTRA RESOURCES PLC V CREDIT VERITAS USA LLC [2015] EWHC 1830 (CH)
It is trite law that the court will grant an injunction restraining the advertisement of a winding-up petition where the petition amounts to an abuse of process.
E: BW ESTATES LTD; RANDHAWA AND ANOTHER V TURPIN AND ANOTHER [2015] EWHC 517 (CH) (“RVT”)
This decision followed an application by creditors (“the Randhawas”) of BW Estates Ltd (“the Company”) against the administrators of the Company that their remuneration should be deemed excessive and either disallowed entirely or reduced to such extent as the court thought appropriate.
The Facts
The South East’s position as one of the more prosperous areas of the UK, in terms of both lifestyle and work looks set to continue, as demonstrated by the findings of Lambert Smith Hampton’s UK Vitality Index Report 2015 in which Guildford came out as the top destination in the UK, with other cities in the region dominating the list.
On 20 May 2015, the Supreme Court of Appeal (in the matter of African Banking Corporation of Botswana v Kariba Furniture Manufacturers & Others) clarified one of the biggest uncertainties arising out of the business rescue provisions of the Companies Act. The Court has now clarified the meaning of the term “binding offer” in a manner which not only brings clarity to the business rescue regime in general, but also will provide greater comfort to banks and other creditors.
TECHNICAL UPDATE - APRIL 2015
The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (“the Act”), which received Royal Assent on 26 March 2015, contains a number of changes and additions to the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”).
A summary of the changes, as they relate to insolvency proceedings, are highlighted below but for full details as to the newest additions to the IA 1986, please see s117 to s146 of the Act which can be located at:
Thanks to a decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia released on June 13, 2013, Court-appointed receivers can now accept appointments with greater confidence that their fees and expenses incurred in passing their accounts are recoverable from the estate - or possibly from a third party who raises opposition, if no assets remain in the estate.
In Re Avant Enterprises Inc.[1], the Supreme Court of British Columbia expressed its reluctance to leave its receiver exposed in respect of costs incurred in the passing of its accounts.
INTRODUCTION
In theory, when liquidating a succession, publication formalities must be observed so that the various creditors can present themselves and claim their due. This formality also gives the successors an overall view of the assets and liabilities of the succession before deciding whether or not to accept it.
On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers[1]. The ruling: