A Court of Appeal decision last week has broadly upheld previous TCC guidance as to the ability of companies in liquidation or those subject to CVAs to commence and enforce adjudication proceedings against their creditors. Although theoretically possible, adjudication proceedings commenced by companies in liquidation are now liable to be restrained by a court injunction.  Adjudications by companies subject to a CVA are more likely to be appropriate and, depending on the circumstances, may be enforced without a stay of execution.

Insolvency set-off: a recap

A party on the receiving end of an adjudication is usually in a difficult position. Its situation is only made worse if the referring party is insolvent.

In such a situation, if the adjudicator makes an award in favour of the insolvent company the chances of subsequently recovering any sums awarded in litigation are very limited. While a stay to enforcement may be available, there are costs associated with obtaining a stay which will probably also be irrecoverable.

Daniel Gatty discusses the recent High Court ruling in Leon v Her Majesty’s Attorney General and others [2018] EWHC 3026 (Ch) and its impact on the grant of vesting orders following the disclaimer of a lease.

Readers of this column will be aware of the complications that can ensue when a lease is disclaimed by a tenant’s liquidator under section 178 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), by a tenant’s trustee in bankruptcy under section 315 of the IA 1986 or by the Crown under section 1013 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) following dissolution of a tenant company.

This recent Court of Appeal decision has provided clarity on the justification for the rules against bringing claims for reflective loss and confirmed that both unsecured creditors and shareholders are similarly barred from bringing such claims.

Background

The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court decision granting a non-party costs order against an insolvent company’s director and majority shareholder. The court cited the claimant’s failure to warn the non-party of its intention to seek such an order as fatal to the application: Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC v WPMC Ltd (in liquidation) [2018] EWCA Civ 2005.

In an urgent application, the Court of Appeal held that a CVA should be precluded from becoming effective where an unanticipated claim of €126.7m was submitted after the CVA was approved but before the statutory bar on new claims had lapsed.

The Court of Appeal considers 'reasonable adjustment' in the context of possession proceedings

The first case in which the Equalities legislation has been raised as a defence to a mortgagee's claim for possession has recently been before the Court of Appeal.

Key points

• To attribute a director’s fraud to a company, the company must be a one-man company

• A one-man company requires no innocent directors or shareholders

The Facts

Singularis Holdings Ltd (the “Company“) was set up to deal with the personal assets of Mr Al Sanea. Mr Sanea was at all the times the sole shareholder of the Company, though he was only one of a number of directors of the Company.

Key points

• Once clear that an action is improperly constituted, it should not be allowed to proceed.

• Those in control of a company have the duty to manage that company in accordance with its constitution.

The Facts

Key points

• Where the underlying liability on which a bankruptcy order is made is subsequently set aside, the correct remedy is rescission under s.375(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986.

• Annulment under s.282(1)(a) is the appropriate remedy when, on grounds existing at the time of making the bankruptcy order, the order ought not to have been made.

The facts