Global Corporate Limited v Dirk Stefan Hale [2017] EWHC 2277 (Ch) 

Summary

A recent judgment re-iterates the importance of carefully drafting a deed of assignment when assigning claims.

In Global Corporate, the liquidators of a company assigned certain claims by way of a deed of assignment to Global Corporate Limited (the “Assignee”). The Assignee (the Applicant in this case) then brought several claims against the company’s former director and shareholder.

Re Diffraction Diamonds DMCC [2017] EWHC 1368 (Ch)

This case deals with the English Court’s jurisdiction to wind up foreign companies, on the grounds of public interest. While it does not create new law, it is a helpful review of the authorities, particularly Re Titan International Inc [1998] 1 BVLC 102 (“Titan”).

Case Facts

This case raised the issue of when a company in financial distress (or the directors of that company) should issue a Notice of Intention to Appoint an Administrator (“NOITA”) which affords a moratorium under Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA86”).

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).

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:

In Chan Siew Lee Jannie v Australia and  New  Zealand Banking Group  Ltd  [2016] SGCA 23,  the Singapore Court of Appeal was faced with the issue of whether a statutory demand issued to a guarantor would be deemed defective and liable to be set aside if it did not include the details of a pledge given by the  principal debtor.

In a recent decision Peh Yeng Yok v Tembusu Systems Pte Ltd (formerly known  as  Tembusu Terminals Pte Ltd) and others [2016] SGHC 36, Judicial Commissioner Chua Lee Ming, sitting in the High Court, elaborated on the standard required to justify a search order (also known as an Anton Piller order). The Court emphasised in particular, that the onus was on the party seeking the search order to  show that  there is  a  real  possibility that the defendants will otherwise destroy documents that are relevant to the proceedings.