Court sets out procedure for contempt of court proceedings against bankrupt

For the first time, the Divisional Court has provided guidance on the correct procedure to be used in contempt of court cases falling under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA).

There are two aspects of wrongful trading and misfeasance that are of interest (i) board directors (and those advising the board) must be aware of the duties that the directors are subject to in performing their role as directors and the liability that attaches to breach of those duties and (ii) companies may be affected by the wrongful trading/misfeasance of customers/suppliers which impacts on trading.

The Insolvency community in Scotland has watched with interest the case of Grampian MacLennan's Distribution Services Ltd v Carnbroe Estates Ltd and in particular Lord Woolman's eyebrow raising opinion at first instance that a distressed sale by a company of its major asset (an industrial unit comprising a warehouse, vehicle workshop and yard with gatehouse) had not constituted a gratuitous alienation where the sale has been off market at a price of £550,000 whereas the property had been valued at £1,200,000 on the open market or at £800,000 on a restricted 180 day marketing period

The Pugachev tale

Key points

• Failure to comply with sections 333 and 363 of the Insolvency Act constitutes contempt of court for which a committal order may be obtained.

• A trustee in bankruptcy should not usually require permission to apply for a committal order.

• Correct procedure for application confirmed by the court.

The Facts

Norton Aluminium Ltd (NAL) went into Administration following a partially successful nuisance claim against it and subsequently went into Liquidation. Mr Dickinson was the managing director and controlling shareholder and brought a claim to recover a secured loan made by him to NAL. The Liquidators counterclaimed to set aside or recover compensation for various transactions, including a share buyback from Mr Dickinson and connected parties by NAL for £2.5 million and the sale of a subsidiary to Mr Dickinson for £1.

The High Court considered whether it would be appropriate to approve a scheme of arrangement for a company incorporated in Luxembourg where the company's COMI had been moved to England and there had been a change in the governing law and jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts.

Gowling WLG's finance litigation experts bring you the latest on the cases and issues affecting the lending industry.

Interests of bankrupt's creditors remain paramount

In Pickard and another (Joint Trustees in Bankruptcy of Constable) v Constable, the question before the court was how exceptional the circumstances had to be to postpone an order for possession and sale of a property in which the bankrupt had a 50% share.

In Orexim Trading Ltd v Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Ltd and others [2017] EWHC 2663 (Comm), the High Court held that a claim under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") where it was not brought by an insolvent company within the jursdiction did not fall within the jurisdictional gateways under paragraph 3.1 CPR PD 6B.

The decision in Mezhprom v Pugachev, which was handed down on 11 October 2017, has potentially wide-ranging ramifications for trustees and the private client industry more generally.

Although the judgment is a first instance decision and may be appealed, the approach taken by the judge in this case to the analysis of powers conferred on protectors is an important development.