EY's Hunter Kelly and Alan Hudson have been appointed administrators over UK construction services company Interserve, hours after it failed to secure shareholder approval for a restructuring plan.
Kelly and Hudson were appointed over Interserve Plc, the holding company for the Interserve Group, on 15 March after the plan failed to win approval at a shareholders' general meeting earlier the same day.
Imagine this: a contractor undertakes to perform certain works by a specified date, and agrees to pay liquidated damages (LDs) if it does not complete by that date (subject to any entitlement to an extension of time). The contractor, through its own fault, is late and does not complete by the specified date. In fact, the contractor is very late and, in the end, the employer terminates the contract before the works are completed (as it is entitled to do under the contract).
- The Court of Appeal has given guidance to insolvent companies about whether to commence an adjudication.
- There is an important distinction to be drawn between a company in a CVA and one in liquidation.
- Parties need to be careful when making general reservations to an adjudicator's jurisdiction.
What's it about?
Last year the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) held that a company in liquidation cannot refer a dispute to adjudication in circumstances where there are claims by a company in liquidation and cross claims by the other party1.
What should your company do if faced with a statutory demand or a winding up petition? Time is of the essence where there is a threat of formal insolvency proceedings. If a winding up petition is being threatened it must not be ignored. The consequences that can flow once a winding up petition has been advertised can be devastating, both to the company's reputation and its financial position.
We identify some of the key considerations and steps that should be taken immediately so as to reduce any damage that a winding up petition can cause.
A year after its collapse, Carillion's insolvency continues to haunt both its supply chain and the wider UK construction industry. Many of those left unpaid had spent months chasing Carillion for payment, all the while staving off payment demands from others. Overnight, their debts became unsecured. The flow of cash from Carillion that would have paid its supply chain dried up. A cascade of consequential insolvencies was inevitable.
With the Court of Appeal’s decision in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd just a few weeks old, it is hardly surprising that people are looking again at the relationship between insolvency law and adjudication, noting that in cases of liquidation where parties have a cross claim, construction law defers to insolvency law.
This was clearly illustrated in Gregg Nowak Ltd v CSS Electrical Distributors Ltd, which came before HHJ Bailey earlier this month.
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
In a Court of Appeal decision handed down last week the court considered the interplay between the construction adjudication process on the one hand and the insolvency regime on the other.
The High Court of England & Wales considered, in respect of the delayed completion of a solar project, the appropriate end date for liquidated damages under a terminated construction contract.
It is usual and standard for a construction contract to contain a liquidated damages clause. It is also common for a termination clause to be included and it is not unusual for it to be exercised. Strangely, however, it is not clear under English law how these two concepts interact.