When reviewing a security for costs application under CPR 25.12, the courts are faced with the challenge of striking a balance between an impecunious claimant’s access to justice and the possibility of a successful defendant being unable to recover their costs. This is because the general rule in relation to costs under CPR 44.2 is that the unsuccessful party will pay the costs of the successful party.

In the recent case of Gillan v HEC Enterprises Ltd (in administration) and Ors [2016] EWHC 3179 (Ch), the High Court considered (1) in what circumstances administrators can recover costs and expenses incurred in dealing with trust property and (2) how the administrators’ costs in applying for a Berkeley Applegate order and other litigation were to be dealt with.

Background

Speed Read

Recent Developments

Europe has struggled mightily during the last several years to triage a long series of critical blows to the economies of the 27 countries that comprise the European Union as well as the collective viability of eurozone economies. Here we provide a snapshot of some recent developments relating to insolvency and restructuring in the EU.

On May 9, 2012, the English High Court, in Trillium (Nelson) Properties Ltd v Office Metro Ltd [2012] EWHC 1191 (Ch) (09 May 2012), for the first time ruled on the requirements governing the existence of an “establishment” under the EC Insolvency Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000) (the “Regulation”). Under the Regulation, “main” insolvency proceedings may be commenced on behalf of a debtor only in the single jurisdiction in which the debtor’s “centre of main interests” (commonly referred to as “COMI”) is located.

The English High Court in Fondazione Enasarco v Lehman Brothers Finance S.A. and Anthracite Rated Investments (Cayman) Limited [2015] EWHC 1307 (Ch) applied a common sense approach in the circumstances to the determination of Loss under the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement. The judgment of the judge (Mr Justice David Richards) is useful reading for those involved in structured products and derivatives.

Background

The High Court (David Donaldson QC) has held in Enta Technologies Limited v HMRC [2014] EWHC 548 (Ch), that where a winding-up petition was brought by HMRC based on the non-payment of tax raised in assessments and the taxpayer's appeal against those assessments was pending, the winding-up court should refuse to adjudicate on the merits of the appeal and should leave that question to be dealt with by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) ('FTT').

Background

A recent High Court case involving unlawful loans to directors illustrates the potential pitfalls involved in calculating limitation periods, and the circumstances in which the usual six year statutory limitation period will not apply to a recovery claim against a fiduciary.

Facts

Broadside Colours and Chemicals Ltd was a family firm supplying dyes to the textile trade. The directors were Geoffrey Button, his wife Catherine Button, and their son James Button. Only the father and son were shareholders.

In a judgment useful to insolvency practitioners, a court has recently confirmed that liquidators are not personally liable for payment of dividends. In Lomax Leisure v Miller and Bramston [2007] EWHC 2508 (Ch) Miller and Bramston faced personal claims on dividend cheques they had cancelled, after receiving a pending application from a creditor whose claim they had rejected. Miller and Bramstom were later replaced by a new liquidator who brought claims in the name of the company and various creditors.