It is common knowledge to many that parties to a construction contract have the right to adjudicate at any time. This is a right implied by statute and a right that cannot be fettered. However, it seems the limits of such a right are now somewhat more nuanced. In the recent case of Michael J. Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited v Bresco Electrical Services Limited (in Liquidation) [2018] EWHC 2043 Fraser J has considered how the Insolvency Rules and Adjudication work together and what this means for the right to adjudicate at any time.

The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee has endorsed the passing of the Bankruptcy Amendment (Enterprise Incentives) Bill 2017 in its report dated 21 March 2018.

The Bill will align the bankruptcy period in Australia with the United Kingdom. Under the Bankruptcy Act 1996, the period of bankruptcy (unless a successful objection is made) is three years. If passed, the Bill will reduce the period to one year.

Key points to note are that:

Directors against whom claims for a misfeasance have been intimated often turn to limitation and set off in defence of a request for the repayment or restoration of the relevant sums or property.

Misfeasance and limitation

With the news of major government contractor Carillion's liquidation, we look at the practical steps public bodies should be taking if Carillion is one of their contractors or is part of their supply chains so as to ensure there is as little disruption as possible across their service areas.

Contract review

This article was first published in The Gazette, and the original article can be found online here.

The implementation of the Insolvency Rules 2016 has introduced a number of changes to the procedures in insolvency regimes.

Marex Financial Limited v. Carlos Sevilleja Garcia [2017] EWHC 918 (Comm)

This recent decision on a jurisdictional challenge has provided greater clarity and potentially created a tortious cause of action where a debtor dissipates assets prior to judgment and subsequent freezing order.

Background

Part 15 Insolvency Rules 2016 consolidates the rules in relation to notices, voting rights, exclusions and appeals introducing some much needed consistency between the different insolvency processes. Most of the changes are minor, but the new Rules also introduce two radical changes:

1. The abolition of physical meetings as the default decision making mechanism in all insolvency processes, and

2. New decision making procedures (including deemed consent which will be covered in next week's update.)

An update on the changes to CVA's brought about by the introduction of the New Rules.

1. CONSOLIDATION OF THE RULES

1.1. The New Rules applicable to CVA's are found at rules 2.1 to 2.45 of the New Rules, (formerly found between 1.1 to 1.55 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 ("IR86")). There has been an element of consolidation of IR86 applicable to CVA's and relating to:

The BVI High Court granted Norwich Pharmacal relief against a registered agent for a judgment debtor who was subject to an interim freezing order.

The judgment creditor had obtained an interim freezing order against the judgment debtor, and was seeking general information as to the assets of the judgment debtor, following a pattern of concealment of assets to frustrate enforcement of a foreign judgment. The judgment debtor had failed to comply with an overseas freezing order and had been held in contempt of court for failing to disclose assets.

On 23 June 2016, a 52% majority of the British people voted in favour of leaving the European Union. It is unclear the extent of the effect this will have, but restructuring and insolvency professionals face an uncertain future if the EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings 2000 and the Recast Insolvency Regulation, which replaces it in 2017, cease to apply to cross border restructurings in the UK.