Executive Summary

In a radical departure from settled case law, the English High Court has eroded the protections of English law creditors guaranteed by the Rule in Gibbs¹ .

What happens to a company at the end of an administration is a question that probably only keeps insolvency anoraks up at night.

There are a limited number of potential options, with the rescue of the company as a going concern being the number one objective to which all administrators aspire. However, more often than not, an administration will end with the company entering liquidation or, where the company has no property to permit a distribution to creditors, the dissolution of the company.

The judgment of Nicholas Thompsell, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, in Hellard & Ors v OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank & Ors [2024] EWHC 1783 (Ch) deals with three questions raised by an application of the trustees in bankruptcy of Anatoly Leonidovich Motylev for directions under s 303(2) Insolvency Act 1986:

(1) Should the trustees treat certain Russian bank creditors as being caught by the sanctions imposed under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019?

The key distinction between a fixed and a floating charge is well established as a matter of English law.

Despite three recent landmark UK restructuring plan decisions, uncertainty remains around the value, if any, a plan company should offer dissenting creditors as the “deliverability price” of a plan.

A first in the UK – a restructuring plan under Part 26A to the Companies Act 2006 (Restructuring Plan) has been proposed by a project company in a private finance initiative (PFI) project after a convening hearing was held in the High Court in late May.

The Restructuring Plan seeks to compromise both current and future liabilities arising from a PFI project agreement with an NHS Trust. The hearing to sanction the plan will now be held in July.

Background

Crabb was the sole director of Courtside Recycling Ltd (Courtside). From 2014 to 2018, Crabb instructed Courtside's accountants to file VAT returns but only provided bank statements for one of the Company's three bank accounts. As a result, the VAT assessments significantly understated Courtside's true VAT liabilities for this period.

Following its own investigation and using transaction information gathered from Courtside's other bank accounts, HMRC issued amended VAT assessments. Courtside was unable to pay its VAT liabilities.

Purkiss v Kennedy & Ors [2024] EWHC 1081 (Ch) is another judgment in a string of cases arising out of schemes designed to enable self-employed individuals to avoid paying income tax and national insurance on their remuneration. The decision of the Supreme Court in RFC 2012 Plc v AG for Scotland demonstrated the flaws that often mean such schemes fail.

Phoenix Tech Ltd had carried on business to defraud HMRC by participating in a kind of VAT fraud sometimes called “missing trader intra-community” fraud or “carousel” fraud. It had submitted a VAT return claiming the right to deduct VAT and a repayment in respect of various transactions in the sum of £4.5 million. HMRC denied the input tax claim in relation to the transactions and issued a misdeclaration penalty for £607,387. The company appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber).

Deputy ICC Judge Curl KC’s judgment in Wade & Anor v Singh & Ors [2024] EWHC 1203 (Ch) follows applications by the liquidators of MSD Cash & Carry plc to enforce charging orders over a number of properties owned by the defendants, all of them members of the same family. The main protagonists were Mohinder Singh, Surjit Singh Deol and Raminder Kaur Deol, Mohinder being the father of Surjit, and Raminder, married to Surjit. The estate of a deceased family member was added as a party.