2019 was for many a year of waiting…we waited, and waited and indeed still wait…for Brexit. That inevitably has had an impact on the property world and in particular the investment market experiencing a degree of inactivity. Somewhat ironically though Brexit has given us one of several important decisions in 2019 relevant to the Real Estate Disputes world.

The last few decades have seen a steady increase in ‘non-party costs orders’. These are court orders against non-participating people or entities requiring them to pay (either fully or partially) the costs of litigation in which they are not formally involved as parties. This year has proven to be one of flux for such liabilities.

In BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA & Ors [2019], the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision that dividends can be challenged as transactions defrauding creditors under the Insolvency Act 1986.

In BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA & Others [2019], the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court that dividends can be challenged as transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the '1986 Act').

The first instance decision:

We summarise the key legislative changes planned by government relating to insolvency and corporate governance and focus on what they mean for investors, including the private equity community

The rules on contingent assets are broadly as for last year but there are developments to note. Recertification can take longer than expected if there have been changes in relation to an asset.

Trustees and sponsors should be preparing for the recertification of contingent assets that are to remain in place with a view to levy advantage for the 2018/19 year. If there have been changes in relation to a contingent asset, recertification may take materially longer than otherwise.

With residential leasehold law in the spotlight, landlords should be aware of a recent court case which focused upon the method of calculating the premium payable for a residential lease extension.

Associate Martin Cox considers the recent High Court decision of Peel Port Shareholder Finance Company Ltd v Dornoch Ltd, in which the court declined to exercise its discretion under the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPRs”) to order the pre-action disclosure of an insurance policy held by a solvent insured. The article considers the extent to which the outcome in this case is consistent with the overriding objective that courts dispose of cases justly and at proportionate cost.

Senior associate Lucy Gould reviews the recent case of Davis v Jackson [2017] EWHC 698 (Ch), in which the court determined the beneficial interests a separated (but not divorced) married couple each held in a property. The property was owned in joint names but occupied only by the wife, who had solely financed its purchase and the mortgage.

Background

What is a freezing order?

The purpose of a freezing order is to preserve the defendant's assets until judgment can be enforced. It operates by granting an injunction prohibiting the defendant (or anyone on his behalf) from disposing of identified assets. Legally, it does not operate as security over the assets.

Taylor v Van Dutch Marine Holding Ltd

A Court of Appeal judgment held that a company must have a settled intention to appoint an administrator when filing a notice of intent (NOI) under paragraph 26 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (“Schedule B1”) . The court also confirmed that an NOI cannot be filed in the absence of a qualifying floating charge holder (QFCH) on which to serve the notice.