Anyone using arbitration clauses should note the Court of Appeal decision made on Monday 8 December, to the effect that a winding up petition is not automatically stayed because the petition debt arises from a contract containing a mandatory arbitration clause.

This important  development could  assist creditors  enforcing strong  claims against  debtors incorporated in many offshore financial centres as well as in England.

The English Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal brought against a recent High Court decision to stay a winding-up petition in favour of arbitration proceedings, in Salford Estates (No. 2) Limited v Altomart Limited [2014] EWCA 575 Civ.

Directors of ‘can pay, won‘t pay’ award debtors face the prospect of an extended stay in England should they choose to defy a receivership order granted by the English Court in aid of enforcement.

Introduction

The insolvency of one or other of the parties to a dispute has become commonplace in recent times, particularly in construction related disputes. Practitioners are becoming increasingly knowledgeable about the implications of insolvency on procedure and the potential remedies available.

In a judgment only recently published via the Building Law Reports,  the High Court has ruled that a winding up procedure applicable to companies should not be used where there is a triable issue as to the validity of an adjudicator’s decision relied on as evidence of a company being unable to pay its debts: Towsey v. Highgrove [2012] EWHC 2644 (Chancery Division).

Background

[2019] EWCA Civ 27

Background

This was a conjoined appeal alongside Bresco v Lonsdale. In this case, Cannon and Primus had already participated in an adjudication, with the decision of the adjudicator favouring Primus. Primus would later enter into a Company Voluntary Arrangement.

The CVA was made on the basis that, although Primus was insolvent at the time, it would be able to satisfy its creditors if it were able to recover from Cannon and other third parties through litigation and adjudication. This was preferable to liquidation.

[2019] EWCA Civ 27

The Cannon case was heard at the same time as the Bresco appeal, although if searching for it, the case will be found under the Bresco name and reference. Here, there was a lengthy procedural history culminating in Cannon resisting summary judgment of an adjudication decision on the basis that Primus might not be able to repay the sums, because Primus was in a CVA. The Judge at first instance said:

Back in August, we wrote a blog about adjudication and liquidation, following the judgment in the TCC case of Michael J. Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited v Bresco Electrical Services Limited (in Liquidation) [2018] EWHC 2043 (TCC) (Lonsdale).

In my May 2018 article ‘Insolvency calls time on pursuing claims’, I looked at how various moratoria apply to stop claims when a party enters into certain insolvency processes. I offered a taster when I said that adjudicator’s awards were a strange species because they are not final and binding, that this complicates their enforcement, and that I would look at the complex interaction between insolvency and the enforcement of adjudicator's awards soon.