Mana bought proceedings against the liquidators of James for legal costs resulting from the liquidator's decision to continue an appeal against Mana, in respect of successful specific performance proceedings brought by Mana against James.

The High Court has further clarified the law regarding the effect of section 260-5 notices served by the Commissioner on third parties who are required to make payments to a company in liquidation.

The effect of the decision is that the Commissioner cannot issue such a notice after a company has gone into liquidation in order to give himself a priority over other creditors for payment of a tax debt. Such a notice is void.

Recovery of legal costs in insolvency proceedings can be a difficult procedure, as the ability of counsel to claim costs depends on the work performed, the timing of the work, and for whom the work was done.

In Father & Son Investments Inc. v. Maverick Brewing Corp. (2007), 2007 CarswellAlta 1452 (Alta. Q.B.), Maverick Brewing Corporation (“Maverick”) operated a brewery in Edmonton in space leased from Five Oaks Inc. (“Five Oaks”). The two major creditors of Maverick were Father & Son Investments Inc. (“Father & Son”) and Five Oaks. Pursuant to a postponement and subordination of security interest document, Five Oaks had priority over Father & Son to the assets of Maverick.

A  focus  on  the  different  interpretations  concerning  the  treatment  of  claims  for  costs  allocation  in  legal proceedings where a creditor is successful against a debtor admitted to a concordato preventivo procedure

The issue

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".

Introduction

Against the backdrop of the recent sheriff court decisions regarding the need to appoint a Court Reporter even in cases where the assets are insufficient to meet the IPs' fees, the Court of Session has taken an innovative approach to approving IP fees without the need to appoint a court reporter.

Background

This article was written by Greg Standing, partner in Wragge & Co LLP's finance, insolvency, recoveries and sales team and published in the July issue of Motor Finance.

When a claimant discontinues its claim, the usual position is that it has to pay the defendant's reasonable legal costs. This is the general presumption under the Civil Procedure Rules and applies unless there is good reason for it not to.

THE PERENNIAL PROBLEM OF UNPAID DEBTS – YOUR RECOVERY OPTIONS

Where a receiver of an insolvent company brings an unsuccessful claim, a personal costs order will not be made against the receiver unless there are exceptional circumstances making it just to do so.