The defendant was the sole director of a company which went into liquidation. Almost six years after his appointment as liquidator, the claimant commenced proceedings seeking an order pursuant to s 212 Insolvency Act 1986 that the defendant contribute to the company’s assets on the basis that he had acted in breach of duty of care and skill and in breach of fiduciary duty owed to the company, which had resulted in the company’s deficiencies.

Summary

The Pensions Regulator intends to issue its first financial support direction (FSD) against the Bermudan-based Sea Containers Limited (SCL), which is currently restructuring under the US Chapter 11 bankruptcy process.

The company, through its receivers, brought and prosecuted an unsuccessful claim against the defendants. The claim was financed from funds subject to the receivers’ control but the receivers had no beneficial or personal interest in those funds or the outcome of the proceedings. The first defendant sought to recover his costs of the proceedings from the receivers from funds realised in the course of the receivership on the basis that they were the real claimants, and had conducted the proceedings for the benefit of themselves and the bank that had appointed them.

MB had been the secured tenant of a property in which she lived with B, and which she had bought at a substantial discount. The property was conveyed into the joint names of MB and B as joint tenants. Although MB’s mortgage company had insisted the property be in joint names, she claimed that the intention had always been that B would only have a minimal interest in it. He had made no contribution to the purchase price, mortgage repayments or household expenses. When MB had ascertained the effect of the joint tenancy, she gave notice of severance to B.

The claimant and defendant both lent money to a company (Y) under a credit facility. Y’s financial position deteriorated, the parties appointed investigating accountants and put Y into “workout”. Following an assignment of Y’s indebtedness to the claimant to the defendant’s subsidiary, the claimant brought proceedings against the defendant for breach of an anti-claim clause in the assignment.

A husband and wife jointly owned their property. In matrimonial proceedings, the husband was ordered to transfer his interest in the property to the wife. Following his bankruptcy, the husband’s trustee applied to set aside the property transfer on the basis that it had been made at an undervalue, and the wife had given no consideration in money or money’s worth within the meaning of s339 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The wife contended that the fact that she had foregone ancillary relief claims was capable of amounting to consideration.

The bankrupt’s trustee applied for a possession order of his home. The bankrupt unsuccessfully appealed his bankruptcy, the order in litigation that had led to his bankruptcy and the possession order, but he refused throughout to give up possession and applied for a committal order. The court found the bankrupt in contempt of court for failing to give possession and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment.

The bank took a charge on the borrowers’ property. In January 1992, it demanded payment of the balance due under the secured facilities. In June 1992, it made a further formal demand specifically relying on the mortgage. One of the borrowers was subsequently made bankrupt. Periodically, the bank informed the borrowers that they continued to be liable and made demands for payment and referred to the mortgage.

The claimant obtained a judgment against the defendant for breach of a guarantee. The defendant entered into an IVA with his creditors, which included his liability to the claimant. The defendant paid the judgment sum to the claimant, but not the interest awarded on it. The claimant contended that the award of interest was a post-IVA claim, and threatened to bankrupt the defendant which would lead to a termination of the IVA. The defendant applied for a stay of execution of the interest part of the judgment, on the ground that it was within the IVA.

Although this case is about a trustee in bankruptcy’s fight to realise his interest in a property by virtue of a debtor’s bankruptcy, the facts (though extreme) are not untypical of a finance company’s position when a hirer refuses to return goods to it despite the fact the court has ordered the hirer to do so.

In this case Mr Canty was made bankrupt in relation to a relatively small debt and he never accepted the position. There followed a number of appeals and challenges over the following years in which he attempted to reopen and relitigate earlier proceedings.