The Case

This is the first time that the HGCRA has reached the House of Lords. The dispute here, which related to the payment part of that legislation, highlighted the tension between an employer’s payment obligations and the impact on those obligations of the contractor going into administration. Here, on 2 May 2003, Melville applied for an interim payment. No withholding notice was served. The final date for payment was 16 May 2003. Wimpey did not pay, but on 22 May 2003 administrative receivers were appointed.

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.

Background

Insolvency of a contractor or a sub-contractor during the course of a building project has the potential to incur other parties involved in the project in considerable costs.

Here are some of the things to bear in mind in case a contractor or sub-contractor becomes insolvent.

It is over 10 years since the House of Lords decision in the case of Sharp v Thomson (1997 SC (HL) 44) threw a judicial cat amongst the pigeons of property and insolvency law in Scotland. The House of Lords, overturning decisions of both the Outer and Inner Houses of the Court of Session, decided that ownership of a property passed unencumbered by, in this case, a crystallised floating charge, even though the disposition of that property (which had been delivered before the floating charge crystallised) had not yet been registered in the Property Register.

On September 25, the UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) announced that two UK-based firms have been placed into liquidation by the UK High Court following the FSA’s intervention. The FSA believes that these scams may have fraudulently persuaded up to 800 people into buying worthless shares. Investors are believed to have lost up to £3.5 million ($7.5 million).

Chesteroak Limited and Bingen Investments Limited were shut down following allegations that they were dealing in or arranging deals in shares without proper authorization.

Having obtained a possession order against the claimant’s property, the bank then sold it. Issues arose as to whether certain fixtures, fittings and chattels in the property formed part of the sale of the property. The claimant brought claims, amongst others, to recover the fittings and other items, a claim for damages for conversion of those items, and a claim that the property had not been effectively transferred to the buyer as the bank had no title to transfer the chattels to the buyer.

The defendant guaranteed payment of the price of equipment sold by the claimant to the defendant’s subsidiary. The claimant then entered into agreements with the subsidiary and various finance companies under which title in certain of the goods passed to the finance companies in return for payment of part of the relevant purchase price. The subsidiary paid some of the purchase price of the goods, as did the finance companies but the balance remained unpaid when the subsidiary went into liquidation. The claimant claimed on the guarantee and issued proceedings.

The defendant supplied drink to the owner of a club, the cost of which was secured by a charge over the club premises. The owner wished to re-finance his debt to the defendant and took a remortgage with the claimant to be secured as a fist legal charge on both the club and the owner’s house. Part of the remortgage monies were paid to the defendant in partial satisfaction of the sums outstanding. Both the claimant and defendant were granted legal charges over the house.

The defendant was the sole director of a company which went into liquidation. Almost six years after his appointment as liquidator, the claimant commenced proceedings seeking an order pursuant to s 212 Insolvency Act 1986 that the defendant contribute to the company’s assets on the basis that he had acted in breach of duty of care and skill and in breach of fiduciary duty owed to the company, which had resulted in the company’s deficiencies.