2018 has been one tough year on the High Street...

Retail, as a sector, has long been under pressure from increased competition from online retailers, which has resulted in reduced footfall on the High Street, affecting many companies, including many well-known names.

Claims remain frequent in the construction industry, and so do insolvencies. In the wake of main contractor Carillion’s entry into liquidation, and rumours of forthcoming interest rate rises, it is worth looking at what effect different types of insolvency have on the ability to prosecute claims.

The Facts

Mr Reynard, a bankrupt, made an claim against his Trustee, Mr Fox. Mr Reynard acted in person at all times and issued proceedings at the county court money claims centre for breach of contract and negligence, asserting that his Trustee had failed to assess potential claims properly and had incorrectly valued the claims, and therefore had failed to take action.

The Court held that it had jurisdiction to order a Latvian bank to disclose information regarding a bankrupt's dealings. The Joint Trustees of the Bankrupt's estate had demonstrated that their request was reasonable and was required to identify further assets that the Bankrupt might hold.

This decision is the latest that has been made in relation to the bankruptcy of Mr Shlosberg, a Russian businessman domiciled in London. Mr Shlosberg was made bankrupt in January 2015 on a judgment debt of US$195 million plus interest.

This is an interesting and frequently asked question. It is therefore perhaps surprising to learn that there is no direct case law authority on this point. Whilst the registration of a foreign judgment debt might serve to strengthen a creditor’s position should arguments about the validity of a judgment be made (as the court is likely to treat a registered judgment the same as a UK judgment), is it really necessary in these circumstances?

Obtaining Decree

After obtaining a Decree (or judgment in England) there are a number of steps that can be taken, if the debtor does not make payment, to recover the outstanding debt. In Scotland this process is known as “diligence”.

Charge for payment (“Charge”)

Administrators are statutorily entitled to require a receiver to vacate office (paragraph 41 Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986 (“Schedule B1”)). In Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd vCraig and another [2017] EWHC 2405 (Ch) they did just that, taking steps to remove existing receivers not long after their appointment, claiming the action to be in the interests of all the creditors. On the facts, that decision was not only unreasonable but costs were also awarded personally against the administrators.

Brief facts and arguments

The Facts

Mr Brown was declared bankrupt on 12 May 2016, following possession proceedings and costs order against him which had not been paid. Mr Brown did not accept that the original litigation leading to his bankruptcy was valid, and as a result did not accept that the bankruptcy proceedings were valid either. Mr Brown represented himself at all hearings and refused legal representation or assistance.

The Facts

Mr Walker (the “First Respondent”) was appointed as liquidator of Domestic & General Insulation Limited (the “Company”) under the member’s voluntary liquidation procedure. Several months later the liquidation of the Company was converted into a creditor’s voluntary liquidation and Scott Bevan and Simon Chandler (together, the “Applicants”) were appointed as joint liquidators. The appointment took place during a creditors meeting which was convened by the First Respondent.

Directors against whom claims for a misfeasance have been intimated often turn to limitation and set off in defence of a request for the repayment or restoration of the relevant sums or property.

Misfeasance and limitation