Nicola Jane Haworth (Bankrupt) v (1) Donna Cartmel (Trustee in Bankruptcy of Nicola Jane Haworth) (2) The Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs

Case No. 3496 of 2009 in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Manchester District Registry

Summary

The court has a limited discretion not to make a bankruptcy order where the debt is the subject of a statutory demand which has not been paid and is outstanding at the time of the bankruptcy petition hearing.

This was conclusion of the Court in the case of Nicola Jane Haworth v Donna Cartmel and Revenue & Customs Commissioners. The case was an application by Ms Haworth to annul or rescind a bankruptcy order on the grounds that she lacked capacity when a statutory demand and bankruptcy petition were served on her personally.

Background

Section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 provides two main tests of when a company is insolvent:

A recent Supreme Court judgement has confirmed that where an individual, Mr X, acts as director of company A, and company A is the sole director of company B, that will not necessarily make Mr X a “de facto” director of company B.

The Court decided that the mere fact of acting as a director of a corporate director was not enough to render the individual a de-facto director, “something more” would be required, such as the director holding himself out in correspondence as a director of company B.

A leading South Yorkshire insolvency expert has warned of a risk of a rise in corporate insolvencies in the new year.  

The Government Insolvency Service third quarter figures show a slight decline in all forms of corporate insolvency and a big decline in the number of administrations (down 35 per cent on this time last year and 19 per cent down from the previous quarter).  

The underlying policy of the Insolvency Act 1986 is that all assets of an insolvent organisation must be made available for distribution amongst its creditors. However, the courts also have the power to prevent parties from contracting out of the statutory regime. This long established common law principle known as the anti-deprivation principle has been used by the courts over the years to strike down contractual provisions which attempt to do just that. The principle has received an airing in two recent High Court decisions.

Guidance published by HMRC in its Corporate Finance Manual has recently been updated to reflect a change in practice regarding the corporation tax treatment of debt for equity swaps.

Debt for equity swaps are commonly used in corporate restructuring, particularly when a company is in financial difficulty. They may also be encountered in the termination of joint venture arrangements where, prior to the sale of shares in the joint venture company by one co-venturer to the other, the parties wish to convert any loans made to the company into shares.

In a market study, called “The market for corporate insolvency practitioners,” published on 24 June 2010 The Office of Fair Trading (OFT), proposed extensive reforms of the current corporate insolvency regulatory regime. After an eight-month study the OFT believes that reforms are needed to build market trust and create a regime that works in the best interests of creditors as a whole.

S271 Insolvency Act 1986 provides that a bankruptcy petition may be dismissed if the court is satisfied that a debtor can pay his debt, or has made an offer to secure or compound the debt, the acceptance of which offer would lead to the petition being dismissed and that the offer has been unreasonably refused. But what is a reasonable refusal?