Key2law (Surrey) LLP v D’Antiquis 2011 EWCA Civ 1567

USDAW and others v WW Realisation 1 Limited (in Liquidation) and another ET 3201156/2010

This case concerns the recent news about the protective award made against Woolworths PLC.  Woolworths which employed over 27,000 employees in 814 stores went into administration at the end of November 2008.  Joint administrators were appointed and it went into liquidation.

The Issue

On 29 November 2011, the Court of Appeal ruled for the dismissal of appeals lodged by Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited (DSWC) and Bernard Freeman and Michael Sullivan, trading as Satellite Services (SS), in respect of winding-up orders previously secured by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) against these companies.

The Court of Appeal has issued further guidance on the thorny issue of the application of the TUPE Regulations to administration proceedings.  While many practitioners will feel that the decisions are not helpful in trying to achieve business sales in what is already a challenging market, insolvency practitioners (IPs) nonetheless need to be aware of the clarity that these cases have brought. The key points to note are:

In its recent decision in Re Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander^[1], the Supreme Court clarifies the interrelationship between the rule against double proof and the rule in Cherry v Boultbee. The Court considered in particular whether the rule in Cherry v Boultbee is (1) compatible with the principle against double proof, and (2) limited to seeking an indemnity in respect of sums actually paid.

Background

On December 29, 2011, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion in the chapter 11 bankruptcy case In re Nortel Networks, Inc., holding that the "automatic stay" on creditor collection actions outside the bankruptcy applied to prevent the UK Pension Protection Fund and the Trustee of the UK Nortel Pension Plan from participating in UK pensions proceedings initiated by the UK Pensions Regulator.

Key2Law (Surrey) LLP v De'Antiquis [2011] EWCA Civ 1567

In this case the Court of Appeal held that, as a general rule, administration does not fall within regulation 8(7) of TUPE 2006 (which disapplies the automatic transfer principle meaning that employees do not transfer) and instead falls within regulation 8(6) of TUPE 2006 (which is much narrower in scope and only protects a transferee against the transfer of certain liabilities to employees).

On December 21, 2011, in the High Court of England & Wales, Norris J handed down his judgment in Re Virtualpurple Professional Services Ltd [2011] EWHC 3487 (Ch), and in doing so he has become the first judge to cast real doubt on the decision of the Chancellor in Minmar (929) Limited v. Khalatschi [2011] EWHC 1159 (Ch). This is a welcome development and should at least begin the process of finally determining the correct formalities for an out-of-court appointment by directors where there is no qualifying floating charge holder.

FSA has published an undertaking Legal & General has given under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR), in relation to its home insurance policies. It held that certain critical expressions in the policy were potentially so wide that it was hard for a customer to know what was excluded. The insurer agreed to make its wording easier to understand. (Source: FSA Publishes Insurance UTCCR Undertaking)