Summary

The Supreme Court handed down its judgment on the case of Rakusen v Jepsen on 1 March 2023, deciding that rent repayment orders cannot be made against superior landlords.

The case considered whether rent repayment orders (RROs) under the Housing and Planning Act 2016, could be made against immediate landlords only, or whether superior landlords are also liable. 

簡介

英國和香港的法例均規定，債權人只可以就其應獲支付的算定金額提出破產呈請，但相關法例條文並無界定何謂「算定金額」（liquidated sum）。在Re Dusoruth (a bankrupt) Dusoruth v Orca Finance UK Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] EWHC 2346 (Ch) 一案中，英格蘭及威爾斯商業及財產法庭（「法院」）澄清，復還不當得利的申索不論如何確切，仍不能被視為算定金額，因此不能成為破產呈請的依據。

背景

申請人是一名商人，亦是在英國、英屬維爾京群島及馬爾他等多個司法管轄區註冊的多間公司的最終擁有人。他以其中一家公司進行欺詐，遊說富戶投資，然後透過無抵押貸款將資金轉移到他控制的其他公司。申請人被他其中一間正在清盤的公司（「答辯人」）基於以下債務提出破產呈請（「該破產呈請」），並於2020年11月被判定破產：

1.從答辯人的銀行帳戶支付，用於清償申請人的個人信用卡帳單的361,899.73歐元；及

Introduction

简介

英国和香港的法例均规定，债权人只可以就其应获支付的算定金额提出破产呈请，但相关法例条文并无界定何谓「算定金额」（liquidated sum）。在Re Dusoruth (a bankrupt) Dusoruth v Orca Finance UK Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] EWHC 2346 (Ch) 一案中，英格兰及威尔斯商业及财产法庭（「法院」）澄清，复还不当得利的申索不论如何确切，仍不能被视为算定金额，因此不能成为破产呈请的依据。

背景

申请人是一名商人，亦是在英国、英属维尔京群岛及马尔他等多个司法管辖区注册的多间公司的最终拥有人。他以其中一家公司进行欺诈，游说富户投资，然后透过无抵押贷款将资金转移到他控制的其他公司。申请人被他其中一间正在清盘的公司（「答辩人」）基于以下债务提出破产呈请（「该破产呈请」），并于2020年11月被判定破产：

1.从答辩人的银行帐户支付，用于清偿申请人的个人信用卡帐单的361,899.73欧元；及

Nicola Sharp considers the recent appeal decision in Tradition Financial Services Ltd vBilta (UK) Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ, and the ways in which it affects the definition of fraudulent trading.

Wind the clock back a couple of years to (dare I mention it…) the Covid-19 pandemic, and insolvency practitioners were getting mildly giddy about a new development in the form of a standalone moratorium. Slotting in at the forefront of the Insolvency Act 1986 courtesy of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA), the moratorium was designed to give companies a breathing space to find a solution to their troubles when insolvency was knocking on their door.

In the current times of financial stress, a borrower seeking to renegotiate or refinance existing financing arrangements may be asked by its lender to enhance or refresh its security package through the grant of a new floating charge.

The question of whether a floating charge can be avoided due to section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") can arise in such a context.

Void floating charges under section 245 of the IA 1986

On 28 October 2022, the High Court handed down judgment in the case of Alma Property Management Ltd v Crompton And Another [2022] EWHC 2671 (Ch).

In this case, the (freeholder) Claimant sought an order for specific performance of the (leaseholder) Defendants' repairing obligations under a lease of the common parts of a block of flats called North Tower in Manchester.

In Company Law the will of the majority shareholders usually wins out. This is because the majority tend to be in possession of the most company capital. As such, it is the majority who “should” triumph when it comes to managing the company’s direction. Indeed, the rights of minority shareholders set out in the Companies Act 2006 (“CA 2006”) are small in number. They include: