Supreme Court Judgment dated 10 March 2016 (STS 151/2016)
The judgment of the Supreme Court analyses the objective scope of extension of the liability for obligations and debts for which, as appropriate, the director of a company should be liable and, more specifically, the scope of "the corporate obligations subsequent to the occurrence of the legal ground for dissolution".
On 13 December 2009, the Dubai Government issued Decree No. 57 for 2009, in response to the widely publicized concerns over Dubai World’s debt position. The decree established a tribunal seated within the Dubai International Financial Centre, tasked with hearing and deciding claims against Dubai World, its subsidiaries and any person related to the settlement of the financial obligations of those organizations (Dubai World). The Decree also created an entirely new insolvency law which will be exclusively applicable to Dubai World.
Why was Decree No. 57 issued?
Last week Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai, issued Decree No. 57 for 2009 Establishing a Tribunal to decide the Disputes Related to the Settlement of the Financial Position of Dubai World and its Subsidiaries (the “Decree”). The Decree establishes a tribunal (the “Tribunal”) comprising three members--Sir Anthony Evans, Michael Hwang, and Sir John Chadwick--to hear and decide all demands and claims submitted against Dubai World and/or its subsidiaries including Nakheel and Limitless, and any of their directors or employees.
It is an age old problem for creditors who are faced with debtors who ask for more time to pay their debts. The Civil Procedural Rules (CPR) 14.9 and 14.10 allow for a debtor, following the admission of their debt, to request time to pay. It is open for a claimant to choose whether or not to accept a defendant’s proposals; if the claimant does not accept the defendant’s proposals, it is for the court to determine the time and rate of payment. The court’s discretion conferred by CPR 14.10 to extend time for payment has not, until now, been examined.
It is an age old problem for creditors who are faced with debtors who ask for more time to pay their debts. The Civil Procedural Rules (CPR) 14.9 and 14.10 allow for a debtor, following the admission of their debt, to request time to pay. It is open for a claimant to choose whether or not to accept a defendant’s proposals; if the claimant does not accept the defendant’s proposals, it is for the court to determine the time and rate of payment. The court’s discretion conferred by CPR 14.10 to extend time for payment has not, until now, been examined.
A late October 2010 case Straw Realisations v Shaftsbury House illustrates the courts’ approach to technical and insolvency-based challenges regarding enforcement of adjudicators’ awards. Given the current spate of contractor insolvencies and popularity of adjudication, any trust facing an adverse adjudicator's decision in favour of its contractor should not pay without due consideration.
In Gulf International Bank v Al Ittefaq Steel Products Co and others [2010] EWHC 2601 (QB), the High Court set out the factors that must be taken into account by the court when exercising its discretion to extend time for payment of sums due following an admission.
A late-October 2010 case on adjudication illustrates the courts' approach to technical and insolvency-based challenges regarding enforcement of adjudicators' awards.
Haymills (Contractors) Ltd went into administration in August 2009 having already won one adjudication against its employer, Shaftsbury, and having just commenced another, which it subsequently also won. Given Haymills' administration, Shaftsbury refused to pay the amounts awarded in either adjudication, relying on numerous heads to resist payment:
Case considering whether rent which accrued during an administration was payable in full as an expense of the administration or whether payment was a matter of discretion for the court.
On 23 November a new form of diligence will be created which allows creditors to seize money belonging to a debtor in satisfaction of a debt.
In principle, all assets owned by a debtor should be susceptible to enforcement of a debt. But at present, creditors are unable to take diligence against cash owned by a debtor. To rectify this anomaly, a special category of diligence - money attachment - has been introduced by Part 8 of the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc. (Scotland) Act 2007.
When can a money attachment be used?