On 24 March 2021 regulations were laid before parliament to further extend the protections introduced under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA). CIGA originally introduced a number of measures designed to protect companies and directors who were struggling during the pandemic. These measures had originally been implemented to expire at the end of September 2020 but had been subject to two further extensions previously, and have now been extended further.
The team’s spirits have soared this week; not only have we been able to book a garden table at our favourite restaurant for 13th April, it looks as if we might not need to take the 1CL umbrellas with us. Yes, it’s Spring, and the new season brings renewed vigour and optimism to the gang.
The first draft of the much anticipated Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill, which we have written about previously from the perspective of the UK High Street, has been published and it is expected to be passed in early June.
This case update from our Property, Chancery & Commercial team looks at the issues raised in the recent cases of Dhillion v Barclays Bank, Peter Singh Sangha v Amicus Finance, O v O and Others, and Duval v 11-13 Randolph Crescent.
When will the court refuse to grant rectification of the Land Register for mistake?
In Dhillon v Barclays Bank plc [2020] EWCA Civ 619, Mrs Dhillon sought rectification of the Land Register to remove a charge granted following a fraudulent transfer. The property was now worth over a million-pounds. The sum secured by the charge was over £600,000.
It has been a strange summer yet all too soon the nation is deflating paddling pools, spending the national debt of a small country in shoe shops and fervently sewing on name tapes as September and a new academic and then legal year approach. We hope many of you have managed some sort of break from home working / living at work despite all the difficulties with travel this summer. We were particularly tickled when one of our clients suggested setting an "out of spare room" autoreply on his email, rather than "out of the office".
Retrospective changes introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 to the wrongful trading regime to mitigate the impact of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
On 26 June 2020 the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“the 2020 Act”) finally entered into force. Since then Simon Newman and Christopher Pask of 1 Chancery Lane’s Property, Chancery and Commercial team have been offering their views on its provisions and their impact over a series of updates.
Ipso facto provision introduced to UK insolvency landscape by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“the 2020 Act”).
On 26 June 2020 the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“the 2020 Act”) finally entered into force. Now it is in its final form, Simon Newman and Christopher Pask of 1 Chancery Lane’s Commercial, Chancery and Property team will be providing their views on its provisions and their impact over a series of updates.
Simon Newman of 1 Chancery Lane recently acted for a petitioner and obtained one of the first Winding Up Orders under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the 2020 Act). The unusual retrospective applicability of the 2020 Act meant that the Petitioner had to satisfy requirements which were not in force at the time the Petition was issued; requirements which creditors had feared brought to an end (at least temporarily) the ability to threaten a company with insolvency if it is unable to pay a debt that is due.
Legislative Context
On 1 June 2020, Morgan J granted ex parte application to restrain the presentation of a winding up petition by a landlord of its tenant company, a high street retailer.
The judgment can be read here.
The tenant had been required to close the premises from which it traded in accordance with the instructions from the Government in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. This resulted in a failure to pay rent and service charges.