With the measures in place to deal with the COVID-19 situation, volatility and disruption continue to affect Northern Ireland. As a leading full-service law firm, Arthur Cox is ideally placed to mobilise multi-disciplinary teams of lawyers to provide advice and support to organisations.

The Court of Appeal of Jersey has now considered in an appeal against the Royal Court’s decision of 10 January 2018 the case of a UK trustee in bankruptcy (the “Trustee”), whose appointment had been recognised in Jersey by order of the Court and who had been authorised to obtain documents and/or information for particular purposes, who was later subject to coercive measures in his home jurisdiction requiring the disclosure of such material for different, unauthorised purposes (in this case an Information Notice issued by HMRC pursuant to Schedule 36 of the UK Finance Act 2008 (the “

The Royal Court of Jersey was recently required to consider its approach when a trustee in bankruptcy appointed in a foreign jurisdiction (the “Trustee”), whose appointment has been recognised in Jersey by order of the Court and who has been authorised to obtain documents and/or information for particular purposes, is later subject to coercive measures in his home jurisdiction requiring the disclosure of such material for different, unauthorised purposes.

The Jersey Court exercised their discretion and consented to vary the terms of Recognition and Consent Orders to allow a Trustee in Bankruptcy to comply with an Information Notice served by HMRC in relation to the Bankrupt's tax affairs.

In one of a number of cases in which Bedell Cristin has acted for English trustees in bankruptcy who have sought recognition in Jersey for the purposes of seeking documents from Jersey trustees in order to trace assets of the bankrupt, the court was asked to recognise the trustee, even though the petitioning creditor in the bankruptcy was a foreign revenue (HMRC), whose claim comprised 99.8% of all claims against the bankrupt. There is a long established rule in England, Jersey and elsewhere which prevents enforcement of foreign revenue claims.

The High Court has delivered the first decision on the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (the “Scheme”), in the context of the Carluccio’s administration.

As we have previously discussed (HERE), despite further clarification from HMRC over recent days, there remain some unanswered questions regarding the detailed operation of the Scheme, given that the Scheme’s exact legal framework has not been published.

It is now common knowledge that the Government has responded to the COVID-19 crisis with a number of protective measures, including the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS), which provides support to businesses that cannot maintain their current workforce because their operations have been severely affected by COVID-19. Under the CJRS, employers can apply for a grant to cover 80% of the wages (up to £2,500 per month) of employees who are placed on furlough leave.

Background

In the 2018 Autumn Budget, the Chancellor announced his intention to reintroduce Crown Preference with effect from 6 April 2020. Due to the attempts to prorogue Parliament and the General Election last year, the necessary legislation was not passed. However, it has now been introduced in the Finance Bill 2020, with the later start date of 1 December 2020.

* On March 30, 2020, Fried Frank published a memorandum titled COVID-19 Pandemic: Key UK Government and Bank of England Initiatives to Support Businesses ("March 30 Memorandum"). In light of the rapidly developing situation and government response, the March 30 Memorandum has been updated to include the latest guidance provided by the UK Government, in particular as to employment retention initiatives and loan schemes, and is current as of April 15, 2020.

On 28 March 2020, business secretary Alok Sharma announced plans to reform insolvency law to add new restructuring tools, including: