As can often be the way, August was a disappointing month for many, with the dull and dreary weather casting a shadow over plans made for the school holidays. So too, it seems, was August a bad month for the business community – perhaps in some cases linked to the weather, with poorer performance by seasonal businesses reliant on fair weather custom.

The High Court has held that there is no common law rule preventing enforcement of a foreign judgment in England and Wales simply because it is not presently or fully enforceable in the relevant foreign jurisdiction.

When a company is in the so-called “twilight zone” approaching insolvency, it is well-established that the directors’ fiduciary duties require them to take into account interest of creditors (the so-called “creditor duty”).

In a recent case, the High Court has had one of its first opportunities to consider BTI v Sequana [2022] UKSC 25 (see our previous update here), in which the Supreme Court gave important guidance on the existence and scope of the duty of company directors to have regard to the interests of creditors (the so-called “creditor duty”, which arises in an insolvency scenario).

The judgement raises important questions for directors faced with substantial liabilities

The Federal Court of Australia recently determined an application brought by the administrators of a company in voluntary administration seeking judicial guidance on how to deal with claims for costs and interests resulting from two prior arbitrations. The key issue was whether the costs and interests awarded in the previous arbitrations were admissible to proof in the administration of the company, having regard to the fact that the relevant arbitral awards were made after the appointment of administrators.

The Court made a distinction between the two arbitrations as follows:

KEY POINTS

After a sharp rise in May, it came as little surprise to see corporate insolvency figures continue their march upwards. A total of 2,163 registered companies entered an insolvency proceeding in June 2023: the second highest figure since January 2019 and 40% higher than the equivalent for June 2022.

Letting a single property for a limited period of time can amount to “carrying on business” for the purposes of section 265(2)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), as confirmed in the recent case Durkan v Jones [2023] EWHC 1359 (Ch).

Background

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services (the Committee) has delivered its report following an inquiry into the “effectiveness of Australia’s corporate insolvency laws in protecting and maximising value for the benefit of all interested parties and the economy”.