The English High Court has for the first time directly addressed the question of the extra-territorial application of s233 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The Official Receiver as Liquidator of Sahaviriya Streel Industries UK Ltd sought an order to restore access to an IT system provided to the Company by its parent company in Thailand. In granting permission to the Official Receiver to serve the application out of the jurisdiction, the Court was persuaded by the reasoning in the recent cases of Jetivia and Re Paramount Airways which concerned other provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Section 236 Insolvency Act ("IA") 1986 enables the Court power to summon persons with information about the affairs of a company to appear before it and / or to produce documents. In our August bulletin we considered the decision of the English High Court in Re MF Global [2015] EWHC 2319 when it was held that s236 does not have extra-territorial effect. However, having looked at the issue again in Official Receiver v Norriss [2015] EWHC 2697, the High Court has departed from the position in Re MF Global.

This Court of Appeal decision in (1)TopBrandsLtd(2) LemioneServicesLtdv (1) Gagen Dulari Sharma (2) Barry John Ward (as former liquidators of Mama Milla Ltd) (2015) is noteworthy as it underlines that the “illegality defence” is still in a state of flux and in need of clarification by the Supreme Court.

Key Point

Judgment sets out the rationale behind validating three payments made by a Company after the presentation of a winding up petition.

The Facts

This was the third application made by Sahaviriya Steel Industries UK Limited (the “Company”) in connection with payments made that would require validation under s127 Insolvency Act 1986. The payments were necessary to keep part of its business going pending discussions on sale or restructuring.

The Decision

The High Court has recently considered whether directors were in breach of their duties after a company entered insolvency. Specifically, the Court considered whether it could exercise its discretion in accordance with section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986, whereby the Court can order summary judgment against an officer of the company who has misapplied, retained or become accountable for money or property of the company, or been guilty of any misfeasance or breach of fiduciary or other duty in relation to the company.

The Claim

The Court of Appeal has refused to allow a liquidator of a company that was the vehicle for a VAT fraud to rely on the defence of illegality in defending a claim for breach of duty under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986: Top Brands Ltd and others v Sharma (as former liquidator of Mama Milla Ltd) [2015] EWCA Civ 1140.

In Brooks and another v Armstrong ^[1], joint liquidators applied for orders against directors of the insolvent company (the Company) under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act) (the wrongful trading provision) and for remedies to be awarded against delinquent directors under section 212 of the Act.

As of 1 October 2015, a number of changes have been introduced to insolvency law in the UK with more to follow on 10 October 2015 and then in April 2016.  The key developments implemented in October 2015 will affect both companies and individuals.

From 1 October 2015

Personal Insolvency

More important changes to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA86) and other insolvency- related legislation come into force this week (1 October 2015) as a result of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (SBEEA 2015).

We have updated our Implementation Timetable to reflect the changes.

Introduction

This article considers section 238 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ('IA 1986') within the context of what the courts consider to be a ‘transaction’ when applying for a declaration to do with antecedent transactions. Whilst this article is limited to the consideration of section 238, similar factors apply to applications made further to sections 339 and 423 IA 1986.