In 2009, almost 3000 construction firms entered into some form of insolvency procedure, leaving many parties owed money by insolvent firms. These debts could be pursued against the third party's insurer under the Third Parties (Rights) Against Insurers Act 1930. However, debt recovery will be made quicker, cheaper and easier once the Third Parties (Rights) Against Insurers Act 2010 is commenced by Parliament.

Armed with an adjudicator’s decision and a TCC enforcement judgment, can a party issue a statutory demand for payment, even if the other party has a genuine and substantial cross claim against the sum awarded? No, said Judge Stephen Davies in Shaw v MFP. Neither the Construction Act nor the Scheme was intended to displace the position under the Insolvency Rules, which give the court discretion to set aside a statutory demand if the debtor appears to have a counterclaim, set-off or cross demand which equals or exceeds the debt in the statutory demand.

An adjudicator can only deal with one dispute under one contract. In Enterprise v McFadden the adjudicator could not therefore deal with a claim to a net balance arising out of mutual dealings on four separate subcontracts (one of which was not even a construction contract) under Rule 4.90 of the Insolvency Rules 1986. Tripartite adjudication is not possible so the adjudication could not cope with a cross claim which would have involved joining assignors.

In the current economic climate, security for payment is key. Although banks have started to lend money again, they remain cautious and those construction firms with weak balance sheets remain at risk of insolvency. This article discusses five pitfalls in the context of some relevant case-law and devices to protect against these.

In June 2007 we reported on the decision in Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v PRG Powerhouse Limited. Although the case has given rise to a great deal of debate, until now there has been no subsequent reported case in which the court has had to consider whether and how a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) might fairly effect a compromise of a landlord's claim against a guarantor of its tenant.

In Harms Offshore AHT ‘Taurus’ GmbH & Co KG v Bloom [2009] EWCA Civ 632, the English Court of Appeal had to decide whether it would grant an order to vacate an attachment on the property of a company in administration, even though the attachment was obtained by a creditor in a foreign court.

In Pick v Sumpter and another, the first defendant's trustee in bankruptcy applied for an order for possession of the defendants' matrimonial home. At the hearing in May 2006, the evidence showed that the sum outstanding as at November 2005 was £25,571 but did not take into account legal costs. That sum was an estimate and did not take into account statutory interest on the bankrupt's debts beyond the date of the hearing, solicitor's costs of the possession hearing or any increase or decrease in the trustee's remuneration.

The court will not review a bankruptcy order where there has been no material change and evidence subsequently adduced could have been available at the original hearing.

Re Johnson Machine and Tool Co 6

The company was the subject of a “pre-pack” administration, whereby it was placed into administration and its assets immediately transferred to a new company controlled by the directors and owners of the existing company.

Why has the Financial Support Direction (FSD) been issued?