We are frequently approached by architects looking to wind down their practices, because either (i) they want to retire, (ii) they want to close down because of economic uncertainty, or (iii) they simply do not want to carry on with their practice and they will gain little value in selling it. However, in winding down a practice, we recommend the following key issues are considered:

1. Your contractual and professional obligations as an architect to maintain professional indemnity insurance run-off cover; and

The Government has announced they will be relaxing the law for companies undergoing a rescue or restructure process, giving them breathing space that could help avoid insolvency. 

Entrepreneurs’ Relief – review and reform

Entrepreneurs that sell their businesses have been able to take advantage of Entrepreneurs’ Relief since 2008. It currently allows individuals to pay only 10% Capital Gains Tax on all gains on the sale of qualifying assets up to a lifetime allowance of £10m.

The Conservative Manifesto said that ER would be subject to “review and reform”. There is increasing speculation that changes will be introduced at the Budget in March.

This decision by the TCC provides further consideration of the right of a company in liquidation to refer a dispute to adjudication. It follows the earlier Court of Appeal decision in Bresco Electrical services Limited (in liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd (“Bresco”) which we considered in an article earlier this year.

The facts

The judgment also provides clear guidance on challenges to an adjudicator’s jurisdiction, which is of importance to all involved in adjudications.

Background

The case concerned two conjoined appeals, Bresco Electrical Services Limited (in liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited and Cannon Corporate Limited v Primus Build Limited.

Bresco

A recent decision in Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited v Bresco Electrical Services Limited (In Liquidation) [2018] (TCC) has held that a company in liquidation cannot refer a dispute to adjudication when that dispute includes (whether in whole or in part) determination of any claim for further sums said to be due to the referring party from the responding party. 

Background

With two decisions (No. 1895/2018 and No. 1896/2018), both filed on 25 January 2018, the Court of Cassation reached opposite conclusions in the two different situations

The case

The Constitutional Court (6 December 2017) confirmed that Art. 147, para. 5, of the Italian Bankruptcy Law does not violate the Constitution as long as it is interpreted in a broad sense

The case

With the decision No. 1195 of 18 January 2018, the Court of Cassation ruled on the powers of the extraordinary commissioner to require performance of pending contracts and on the treatment of the relevant claims of the suppliers

The case

The Court of Cassation with a decision of 25 September 2017, No. 22274 confirms that Art. 74 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law provides a special rule, which does not apply to cases to which it is not explicitly extended

The case